efore the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 19th day of November, 2004
CD No. 90/2004
S. Sai Ravindra Kumar,
S/o. S. Subramanyam,
R/o. Bank Street, Panyam,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
counsel Sri Lokeswara Reddy.
-Vs-
- The Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
6-3-652, Kautilya,
3rd floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party.
- The Managing ,
M.S.R. Hospital,
Franchisee of Medinova Diagnostic- . . . Opposite party.
Service Ltd, Nandyal.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs. 7,250/- with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- from 28.11.2000 to 27.11.2003 with the opposite party No.1 for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,250/- vide membership deposit receipt No. 00956/P. On 28.11.2003 the complainant sent the original membership deposit receipt to opposite parties through registered post receipt No. 4134 dt 3.12.2003 for realization of maturity amount and it was received by the opposite party No.1 on 5.12.2003. On expiry of the maturity period inspite of several demands and personal approaches the opposite party No.1 did not refund the said due amount and hence the act of the opposite party in not paying the maturity amount of Rs.7,250/- was ehld deficiency of service to the complainant. The opposite party did neither complied the demand for refund of the matured amount nor replied. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim of matured amount of Rs.7,250/-, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defence and thereby remained exparte.
4. While such is so with the opposite parties the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.3 besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant had made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought:?
6. The Ex A.1 is the Membership Deposit Receipt No. 01956/P dt 28.11.2000. It envisages the receipt of an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 28.11.2000 by the opposite party No.1 assuring the payment of Rs.7,250/- as the maturity amount payable on 27.11.200. The Ex A.2 is the postal acknowledgment of the opposite party No.1 for receipt of Ex A.1 dt 5.12.2003. The Ex A.3 is the postal receipt for sending Ex A.1 to the opposite party No.1 dt 3.12.2003. The complainant alleges deficiency of service for the defaultive conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount so far inspite of several approaches and demands and hence holding the opposite party No.1 liability not only to the maturity till the date of the payment. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.3 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit averments in re-iteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties and hence there appears every bonafides in the claim of the complainant.
7. When a Company or Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest or attractive sums it is a service and the depositor is a Consumer as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in 1993 (3) C.P.R. page 345.
8. When the among under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of not honoring the said commitment amounts to deficiency and the Financial Institution is liable to refund the accrued amount with 12% interest as per the decision of Hon’ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited Vs Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in I( 2003) C.P.J. page 260.
9. In the present case also the opposite party’s firm inviting the public deposits on a promise of the payment of matured amount on a tenure of 3 years from the date of deposit did not kept up the said commitment to the complainant by avoiding the payment of the matured amount. Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer depositor and thereby the grievances of the complainant are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite party for refund of the accrued matured amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the maturity and compensation of Rs.1,000/- for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and costs of Rs.1,000/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite party to the Forum for redressal.
10. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the matured amount of Rs.7,250/- with interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of maturity till realization and Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 19th day of November, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Xerox copy of Membership receipt MDR No. 00956/P of S.Sai Ravikumar
issued by Medonova Diagnostic services Ltd, Hyderabad.
Ex A.2 Postal acknowledgement of OP No.1 for receipt as Ex A.1.
Ex A.3 Postal receipt No. 4134 as Ex A.1 sent to OP No.1 through registered post
Ack due.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties : Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
