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