1(a). This Complaint is filed on 12.1.2009 as per Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-Company and seeking certain reliefs which according to the Complainant, is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(b) The case of the Complainant in brief is as hereunder: The Complainant is a retired Doctor who was in Government Service. She had deposited with the Opposite Party-Company a sum of Rs.5,000/- under Fixed Deposit-Cum-Utility Service. Interest at 15% on the said amount was assured. It was an arrangement made by the Opposite Party-Company under “Medinova Gold Card Scheme”. The beneficiaries are the Depositor-Complainant and the Members of their family. It was so deposited on 2.7.1997 as per MDR No.06141/OR. It was for a period of 3 years and it was matured on 1.7.2000. At that time, the Complainant was asked to surrender the Certificate. The Complainant was entitled for a period of Rs.7,250/-, till then. Instead of refunding the amount, the Opposite Party-Company began to persuade the Complainant to reinvest the same in the said Scheme. Accordingly, the Complainant had to renew that deposit by way of reinvestment from 2.7.2000. Inspite of renewal, the Opposite Party-Company failed to pay the interest thereon till the date of renewal totalling Rs.2,250/-. An assurance was given by the 2nd Opposite Party-Branch of the Opposite Party-Company that the said interest amount would be settled shortly.

However, that was not settled. That reinvested amount became matured on 1.7.2003. Inspite of the maturity, there was no payment. Ultimately, a legal notice was caused on 30.11.2006. There was no response. The 2nd Opposite Party-Company on the other hand, wrote a letter dt.22.1.2008 stating that they are liable to pay a total amount of Rs.11,252/- as on 22.1.2008 by way of Principal and Interest. Inspite of that letter, there was no payment. In the circumstances, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Party-Company to pay a sum of Rs.11,252/- along with an interest at 12% p.a. from 22.1.2008, till payment and cost of the litigation in a sum of Rs.1,500/-.


(c) The Complainant has made available Xerox copies of some documents marking them at Annexure 1 to 4. 2. The Opposite Parties were called upon to produce their Version of the case. Accordingly, their Version is made available on 18.3.2009. In brief, it is as hereunder:

It is true that as per MDR No.06141/OR, the Complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- with the Opposite Party-Company and the agreed rate of interest was 15% p.a. It is true that it was renewed and again became payable on 26.7.2003. That Scheme was intended to serve the interests of the Depositors also by way of discount in the Medical Service provided by them to the Depositors upto 50%. Therefore, expanding the business of the Opposite Party-Company is not the sole purpose of that Scheme. The Opposite Party-Company is a Non-Banking Organization. Though it is a profit making company, it could not cope-up with the demands and therefore, there occurred delay in release of the amount to the Depositors. Infact, the Opposite Party-Company has cleared more than 50% of their liability to the Depositors and they would clear their liability in full within a time frame of 5 years. Only due to the financial crunch of the Opposite Party-Company, the above situation has arisen and the non-refund of the deposit with interest to the Complainant was unintentional. There is no deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-Company. The Opposite Party-Company is ready and willing to provide the services to the Complainant in lieu of refunds partial or full.

Accordingly, this Complaint may be disposed-off.


3. The Complainant has made available her affidavit by way of evidence on 30.3.2009. There is no affidavit evidence as such by the Opposite Parties.


4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision in this proceeding and they are:
(i) Whether the Opposite Party-Company remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?
(iii) What Order?


5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder: i) Yes ii) Yes iii) As shown in the operative portion of the Order here below. 6. We shall substantiate our findings on the following:

R E A S O N S


POINT NOs.1, 2 & 3 (a): The Complainant has made available Annexure 1 to 4 to probabilise her case. Annexure 1 is an Acknowledgment dt.26.7.2003 issued by the Opposite Party-Company to the Complainant stating that on the date of maturity i.e. 1.7.2003, the maturity value would be Rs.7,250/- regarding the deposit in question. This is an admitted document. Annexure-2 is a copy of the Letter dt.30.11.2006 addressed by the Counsel of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. Annexure-3 is a Letter dt.22.1.2008 addressed by the Opposite Party-Company to the Complainant stating that they are liable to pay Rs.11,252/- to the Complainant touching the deposit in question.


(b) Now, the grievance of the Complainant is that inspite of the admission of their liability, they failed to refund that amount and on the other hand, they made the Complainant to cause a legal notice as per Annexure-4 dt.11.4.2008 and ultimately, this Complaint. As far as the liability of the Opposite Party-Company is concerned, there is no dispute here.

(c) The contention of the Opposite Party-Company is that their omission to refund the said amount was not intentional. However, the fact remains that they were liable to refund that amount. Under law, when a deposit gets matured and becomes payable and when it is not paid on demand, that very conduct would amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From that view of the matter, there is no substance in the above contention of the Opposite Party-Company. Now, the fact remains that inspite of filing of this Complaint, the Opposite Party-Company have not chosen to refund the same. Wherefore, it is but proper to hold that on account of the non-refund, the Complainant must have been put to some sort of inconvenience and financial loss. Wherefore, that need be compensated in the form of interest and cost of litigation. The Complainant has claimed interest on the said amount at 12% p.a. What we feel is, the above rate of interest is not only just, but also proper in a situation like this and that has to be made payable on the said amount of Rs.11,252/- from the date of 22.1.2008, till payment. As far as the cost of litigation is concerned, we deem it proper to restrict the same in the circumstances to Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R

This Complaint is allowed in this way; The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,252/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred and fifty-two) along with an interest at 12% p.a. right from 22.1.2008, till payment and in addition to the same, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) by way of cost of litigation. The Opposite Parties are granted 60 days time from this date to comply this Order.