M/s.Medinova Diagonstic service Ltd V/S Rame Gowda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/10/1846

Rame Gowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Medinova Diagonstic service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

13 Aug 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/1846

Rame Gowda						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
2.M/s Medinova Diagonstic Serivice Ltd M/s.Medinova Diagonstic service Ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Orders on admission. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Op with this grievance that he had invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- with Op on 18/07/2007 maturable on 07/07/2003. That even though deposit is matured, the Op has not paid the matured value and therefore has prayed for a direction to Op to pay maturity value of the deposit and to award damages. As evident from the allegations of the complainant and copy of the deposit receipt produced the deposit matured on 07/07/2003. Complainant within two years from that day ought to have filed a complaint. Complainants submits further that even during 2005 he gave a representation to the OP to pay the maturity value but even then the Op has not responded positively and therefore, stated that Op is deficient. At least from that year 2005. Within two years, the complainant could have filed a complaint but did not do so. Hence, the complaint is highly barred by limitation and can not be entertained and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Orders on admission.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Op with this grievance that he had invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- with Op on 18/07/2007 maturable on 07/07/2003. That even though deposit is matured, the Op has not paid the matured value and therefore has prayed for a direction to Op to pay maturity value of the deposit and to award damages. As evident from the allegations of the complainant and copy of the deposit receipt produced the deposit matured on 07/07/2003. Complainant within two years from that day ought to have filed a complaint. Complainants submits further that even during 2005 he gave a representation to the OP to pay the maturity value but even then the Op has not responded positively and therefore, stated that Op is deficient. At least from that year 2005. Within two years, the complainant could have filed a complaint but did not do so. Hence, the complaint is highly barred by limitation and can not be entertained and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission.<br />

......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa