Before 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
Thursday the 24th day of February, 2005
CD No. 145/2004
Ahmed Siddique,
S/o. Smd.Khasim,
H.No. 9-114, Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
counsel P. Siva Sudarshan.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
M.S.R. Hospitals,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Center,
Near Sanjeeva Nagar gate,
Opp. Dwaraka Hotel,
Nandyal, Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party
- The Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
6-3-652, Kautilya,
3rd floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party.
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. 7,850/-, with 24 percent interest from the date of the complaint till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- 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 9. 7. 1998 to 7.7.2001 with the opposite party No.2 for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,850/-. On expiry of the maturity period the complainant sbumitted maturity bond to opposite party No.1 on 6.8.2002 and requested to pay matured amount, inspite of several demands and personal approaches the opposite party No.2 did not refund the said due amount and hence the complainant got issued legal notice on 26.2.2003 and it was received by the opposite party and the opposite party did neither complied the demand for refund of the matured amount nor replied to the said notice. 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.7,850/-, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- 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.4 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 acknowledgement dt 6.8.2002 for the receipt of Membership Deposit Receipt No. 00740/IX matured on 7.7.2001. It envisages the receipt of above MDR from the complainant on 6.8.2002 by the opposite party No.2 assuring the payment of Rs.7,850/- as the maturity amount payable on 7.7.2001 within six months. The Ex A.2 is the provisional receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 for the receipt of Rs.5,000/- received form the complainant on 9.8.1998. the Ex A.3 is the office copy of the legal notice dt 26.2.2003 caused on the opposite party No.2 demanding the payment of the maturity amount of Rs.7,850/- to the complainant and the defaultive conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the said amount so far and hence holding the opposite party liability not only to the maturity amount of Rs.7,850/-, but also to the interest at 12 percent from the date of the maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. The Ex A.4 is the acknowledgement of the said Ex A.3 notice issued by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party No.2. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.4 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 party and hence there appears every bonafidies 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 percent 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 at 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 percent per annum from the date of the maturity and the incurred expenditure of the complainant for having trips to the O.P seeks refund of the amount 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 to the complainant the matured amount of Rs.7,850/- with interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of maturity till realization 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 24th day of February, 2005.
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 Acknowledgement dt 6.8.2002 given by opposite party No.2 to the
complainant.
Ex A.2 Provisional receipt dt 9.7.1998 issued by OP No.1 in favour of the
complainant.
Ex A.3 Legal notice dt 26.2.2003 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party
No.2.
Ex A.4 Postal Acknowledgement of OP No.2 as April 2003 as to the receipt of Ex A.3.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties : Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
