BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1687/2007 against C.C. 858/2006 , Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad
Between:
C.D.R. Hospitals
C. D. R. Good Health Club Division
A Division of CDR Medical Industries Ltd.
Regd. Office : 3-6-287, Hyderguda
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
T. Shashidhar Reddy,
S/o. Amrutha Reddy
Age: 42 years, MIG-II
BL -28, Flat No. 14
Baghlingampally
Hyderabad-500 044. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
F.A. 1688/2007 against C.C. 859/2006 , Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad
Between:
C.D.R. Hospitals
C. D. R. Good Health Club Division
A Division of CDR Medical Industries Ltd.
Regd. Office : 3-6-287, Hyderguda
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
1. T. Anitha Reddy
S/o. T. Shashidhar Reddy
Age: 32 years, MIG-II
BL -28, Flat No. 14
Baghlingampally
Hyderabad-500 044. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. N. Ramappa
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) These appeals are preferred by the opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay the amount covered under the deposit receipts.
2) Since the appellants in both the appeals are one and the same, pertains to the amounts covered under the deposit receipts, though the Dist. Forum passed separate orders, we are of the opinion that these matters can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.
3) The facts leading to filing of the appeals are as follows:
The complainants’ wife and husband became members in the appellant’s ‘CDR Good Health Club’ scheme on 3.11.2001 by depositing an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under four refundable deposits wherein the appellants agreed to repay Rs. 50,284/- each on maturity on 2.11.2006. When the complainants approached and sought for refund the office found locked. Therefore they filed the complaints for refund of Rs. 1, 00,578/- together with interest @ 12% p.a., compensation and costs.
4) The appellant did not choose to contest the matter.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record viz., Good Health Club Membership Receipts and Good Health Card opined that the complainant was entitled to the amount and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,578/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 2.11.2006 together with costs of Rs. 2,000/- each.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred the appeal contending that Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It had nothing to do with the deposit made with M/s. Emed.com Technologies Ltd., formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd. by the complainants. They are different entities and therefore prayed that the complaints be dismissed.
7) In the appeal they filed copy of certificate of incorporation of CDR Industries Ltd., and CDR Medical Industries Ltd. as additional evidence and they are marked as Ex. B1 & B2.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant had no concern and was not liable to pay the amount covered under the deposit receipts?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had deposited Rs. 50,000/- each on 3.11.2001 having become members of CDR Health Club. The date of maturity was 2.11.2006 with maturity value of Rs. 50,284/- vide Exs. A1 & A2. A perusal of it discloses that ‘CDR Health Club’ was a division of CDR Industries Ltd. The authorised signatory issued four deposit receipts agreeing to pay Rs. 50,284/- by 2.11.2006. A seal was affixed mentioning ‘emed.com technologies Ltd (formerly CDR Industries Ltd). The appellant now contends that it has nothing to do with the deposit receipts issued by ‘emed.com technologies Ltd, formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd., under CDR Good Health Club scheme. A perusal of grounds of appeal in the cause title it was shown as ‘CDR Hospitals, CDR Good Health Club Division, a division of CDR Medical Industries Ltd. The contention was that the complainant had paid the amount to “ M/s. Emed.com Technologies Ltd., (formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd)” Again in the grounds of appeal at (i) it was mentioned. “M/s. Emed.com Technologies Ltd., (formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd) is totally a different company from that of M/s. CDR Medical Industries Ltd. While the appellant claims that “M/s. Emed.com Technologies Ltd., is formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd at one place, and yet another place as M/s. CDR Medical Industries Ltd. The contention is whether it is CDR Industries Ltd. or CDR Medical Industries Ltd. it is altogether different entity. In order to prove it, it filed Exs. B1 & B2.
10) Ex. B1 shows that Omni Hospital Corporation Pvt. Ltd was subsequently changed to CDR Medical Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 3.9.1992 and converted into a public limited company on 25.9.1992. Later it changed its name to ‘CDR Industries Ltd.’ with effect from 8.3.1996. Ex. B2 discloses that ‘CDR Diagnostics Ltd. has changed its name to CDR Medical Industries Ltd. with effect from 30.11.1992.
11) The complainants are admittedly members of ‘CDR Good Health Club’ a division of CDR Hospitals vide Ex. A3. The deposit receipt Exs. A1 & A2 were issued by authorised signatory for CDR Good Health Club. Importantly the words ‘ A Division of CDR Medical Industries Ltd’ were struck off. Curiously a seal ‘Emed.com Technologies Ltd., (formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd)’ was affixed. A perusal of Ex. B1 shows that original name was ‘Omni Hospital Corporation Pvt. Ltd., subsequently changed to CDR Medical Specialities Pvt. Ltd. on 3.9.1992 and converted into CDR Industries Ltd. on 8.3.1996. Ex. B2 shows that CDR Diagnostics Ltd. subsequently changed to CDR Medical Industries Ltd on 30.11.1992. Whatever changes are occurred, the fact remains that CDR group had continued to run hospital, elicited membership under the name and style of CDR Good Health Club. ‘Emed.com Technologies Ltd., is formerly known as CDR Industries Ltd”. Obviously CDR Industries Ltd. changed its name into “Emed.com Technologies Ltd.” Despite the fact that there was change in the nomenclature of the company it had continued its business. It continued pursuing the very same objects. When the deposit receipts are issued by the authorised signatory it has been using the earlier deposit receipts printed by the earlier CDR Medical Industries Ltd. and CDR Industries Ltd. There is no reason why separate receipts were not issued by “Emed.com Technologies Ltd.” Whatever its name. The receipts relate to CDR Good Health Club, Emed.com Technologies Ltd have been using the very same receipts. A facsimile stamp is only affixed in the middle. Therefore it has been conscious that it is a division of both CDR Industries Ltd. as well as CDR Medal Industries Ltd. The appellant could now show as to how change in the nomenclature would entail evading payment taken on behalf of “CDR Health Club”. It is not the case of the appellant even that they were not the directors of the earlier company or that of “Emed.com Technologies Ltd.” which according to the appellant is in existence. When their own deposit receipts show that it is the very same industry and the said fact is reflected by their own receipts, the allegation that it has nothing to do with the earlier CDR Industries or CDR Medical Industries Ltd. is unsustainable. The limitation is taken only to evade the amount. If it has nothing to do with FDR issued, it could have filed the certificate from Registrar of Companies showing the names of the directors in order to allege that they were not liable and it is only the directors of “Emed.com Technologies Ltd.” that were liable to pay. They could not have issued the deposit receipts on the FDR receipts of “CDR Good Health Club.” When the notice was served on the appellant in the complaint it had received the notices by affixing the seal of CDR hospitals. It could not have received if it has nothing to do. Equally it did not choose to contest. No reason whatsoever was assigned why it could not contest when admittedly it has received the notices. By floating different companies, and by changing the names of the companies, and when it continued to transact under the very name and style of CDR Hospitals it is bound to pay the amount. These are different techniques adopted by these companies to evade the lawful amounts due to the deposit holders. The appellant though filed the articles and memorandum of association of CDR Medical Industries & emed.com Technologies Ltd. in appeal it is not known who ultimately took liability for payment of these amounts. They are only the same entity liable to pay amounts. Therefore they were liable to pay the amount. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.
12) In the result both appeals are dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/- each. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 09. 06. 2010.
*pnr
