LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Medinova Diagnostic Services H.Ramakrishnaiah,
No.63(JP), 4th Cross, I main,
LIC Colony, 3rd Block East,
Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011
…. Complainant.V/s
01. Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd.,
Regd. Office 6-3-652, Kautilya,
3rd Floor, Somajigudda,
Hyderabad – 500 082.
02. Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd.,
Branch Office No.55, Infantry Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
…. Opposite Parties
This complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.12,470/- with interest thereon at 19% Per Annum from Januar-2009 till the date of payment, to pay damages in a sum equivalent to 50% of the amount payable and Rs.1,000/- towards expenses.-: ORDER:-
2. The case of the complainant is as under:-
In response to the call made by the Opposite Party inviting public deposits, the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- as per MDR No.02183/XII dated:02/07/1999 for a period of three years. The maturity value of the deposit was Rs.7,850/- payable on 01/07/2002. In spite of several letters and reminders, the Opposite Parties failed to pay the maturity value of the deposit. On 18/06/2008 he was advised to avail the services of the Opposite Parties for investigations/check-up and get a portion of interest payable adjusted towards their charges. Accordingly, Rs.4,600/- was adjusted for executive check-up of the complainant and his wife and therefore the principal amount and the balance towards interest is due which the Opposite Parties failed to pay in spite of several reminders. Hence, the complaint.
3.In the version, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the complainant has invested Rs.5,000/- on 02/07/1999 and the interest payable on the principal is at 19% and the date of maturity is 01/07/2002. A major number of investors wanted to withdraw the maturity amount and were not willing to avail the services which was the main motivation for the depositors. The complainant is well aware of the fact that the Opposite Parties had the intention of doing services to the public and at the same time gain interest on the deposits and for that purpose they had made a provision for discount up-to 50%. The main intention for receiving the deposits was to expand the business and up-gradation of Diagnostic facilities by expecting medical membership deposits from the general public. But the depositors like the complainant were interested only in the interest income and not availing the services provided. Though it is a profit making Company, it has not been able to cope with the refund demands which started maturing in the year 1994. They have been refunding the deposit on a regular basis giving priority to each depositors and year-wise. They have cleared more than 50% of the liability and intend to clear all the liability in a time frame of five years. Opposite Party No.2 is still running the Diagnostic services and the complainant has availed the services for the interest payable on the principal amount. They are willing to provide service to the complainant and there is not a single complaint against the company for deficiency of service. The complainant has falsely stated that the Opposite Party is due interest on the maturity amount as the complainant himself accepted the services for the interest accrued on the principal on 18/06/2003 for a sum of Rs.7,323/-. Therefore, the question of repayment of interest does not arise. The non-refund of deposit in time is unintentional and bona-fide due to sudden demands for refund. There is no deficiency in services as the Opposite Parties has rendered services towards interest payable. They are also ready to extend services for the principal amount. On these grounds, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed re-joinder to the version filed by the Opposite Parties.
5.In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced the copies of documents. Except filing the version, the Opposite Parties did not adduce any evidence. When the matter came up for arguments, the Opposite Parties and their counsel remained absent. We have heard the complainant.
6. The points for consideration are:-
1.Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2.Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our findings are:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following:-
8. The fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- with Opposite Parties on 02/07/1999 and the deposit matured for payment on 01/07/2002, the maturity value of the deposit was Rs.7,850/- is not disputed. Though the deposit matured for payment on 01/07/2002, admittedly the Opposite Parties have not paid the maturity value of the deposit to the complainant. It is also contended that on 18/06/2008 certain amount was adjusted towards the services availed by the complainant. According to the complainant Rs.4,600/- was adjusted towards executive check-up of himself and his wife at the rate of Rs.2,300/-. But the Opposite Parties claim that Rs.7,323/- was adjusted out of the interest payable towards the service rendered. But no documents are produced by the Opposite Party in support of that contention. Therefore, we uphold the contention of the complainant that only Rs.4,600/- out of the interest payable was adjusted towards the service rendered. Alleging non-refund of the amount, the complaint is filed on 23/01/2009. Therefore, though the deposit matured for payment on 01/07/2002, on account of non-refund of the amount, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest on the deposit amount from 01/07/2002 till the date of payment. While arriving at Rs.12,470/- as the amount payable by the Opposite Parties, the complainant has calculated interest on Rs.7,850/- from 01/07/2002 to 20/06/2008 at 19% Per Annum and on Rs.3,250/- from 20/06/2008 to 31/12/2008. Though Rs.7,850/- is the maturity value of the deposit, the complainant is not entitled to claim interest on the entire maturity value which includes the principal amount of Rs.5,000/- and interest thereon. Because, as per the copy of the Fixed Deposit receipt, the complainant is entitled to Simple Interest at 19% Per Annum on the sum of Rs.5,000/- deposited. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim interest on Rs.2,850/- as has been done. Interest on Rs.5,000/- from July-2002 to December-2008 works out to Rs.6,175/-. If Rs.7,850/- - the maturity value of the deposit payable on 01/07/2002 is added to this amount, the total amount payable by the Opposite Party to the complainant comes to Rs.14,025/-. Out of this amount, Rs.4,600/- adjusted on 28/06/2008 towards services availed is to be deducted. If that is done, the amount payable to the complainant comes to Rs.9,425/-. Thus, we hold that the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.9,425/- from the Opposite Parties and not Rs.12,417/- as claimed in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:--:REASONS:-
1.The complaint is ALLOWED in part.-:ORDER:-
2.The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.9,425/- to the complainant along with the costs of Rs.1,000/-. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication, failing which the sum of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest at 10% Per Annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Submit Complaint..
