BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 4th July 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 16 / 2013
Gajulapalli Lakshmi, W/o Venkata Subbaiah,
aged 62 years, Resident of Plot No. 268,
3rd floor, Vasavi Towers, Gandhi Road,
Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Karvy Computer Shares Pvt. Ltd., Narayani Mansion,
H.No. 1-90/2/10/E, Vittal Rao Nagar,
Madapur, Hyderabad.
2. The Chairman, Unit Trust of India, 28th Floor,
Commerce Centre-I, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay.
3. The Branch manager, Unit Trust of India,
2/790, Sairam Towers,
Nagarajupeta, Kadapa – 516 001. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 26-06-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties 1 & 3 and O.P.2 not pressed the case on 11-3-2014 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay the Unit amount of complainant prevailed on the date of surrendering the share certificate by the complainant i.e. 27-1-2011 together with interest at 24% per annum till the date of realization of the amount.
(b) To pay Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for mental agony.
(c) Grant Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of this complaint and
(d) Grant such other and further reliefs, as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that, she purchased 500 share of Unit Trust of India under Master Plus scheme in the year 1992 from the Opposite parties. The O.P.1 is doing consultation business in shares at Hyderabad. The O.P.2 is the chairman of Unit Trust of India incorporated under the Unit Trust of India Act 1963. Hence, the Unit Trust of India can sue and the sued in the name of Chairman and O.P.3 is the Branch Office O.P.2 having office in Kadapa city. The above said 500 shares of Unit Trust of India purchased by the complainant with registration folio No. of the 500 shares is 546249. The distinctive numbers of the five certificates are covered with bearing Nos. 305939301 to 305939800 and the certificate Nos. for the five certificates are 02842239 to 02842243 and she is in need of money surrendered five original share certificates on 27-1-2011 with the O.P.1 and waited for the payment of amount. After two months she telephoned to the O.P.’s and sought about the surrender value of the shares, but the O.P.’s did not respond properly. After that she received a letter from O.P.1 on 3-2-2011 stating that the Unit bearing folio No’s. 50244499046 were switched to 50262052784 and the units under folio No. 50262052784 were redeemed on 2-4-2007 and the same was paid on 21-6-2007. The complainant surprised to see the O.P.’s letter because he never surrendered the certificates to the O.P’s prior to 27-01-2011 without surrendering the original share certificates, how could the O.P.’s paid amount to the complainant.
3. The complainant further stated that she sent the share certificates bearing folio No. MP-546249 mentioned in the five certificates. The said folio Number is no way concerned to the folio number mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 03-2-2011 reveals that the O.P’s have made payment for the share certificates on 21-6-2007. Hence, there is no relation in between the share certificate surrendered by complainant and the share certificates mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 3-2-2011.
4. The complainant also stated that she got issued a legal notice to O.P.1 on 21-3-2011 but the same was proved in vain. The O.P.1 branch office gave a letter dt. 3-5-2011 to the complainant’s counsel stating that “we wish to inform you that we have been investigating the matter and we will revert to you with status very shortly, we regret the inconvenience” but till today there is no settlement of the genuine claim of the complainant it clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. Hence, the complaint.
5. O.P.1 & O.P.3 filed counters and O.P.2 not pressed the case.
6. O.P.1 filed a counter denied all allegations made in the complaint and stated that UTI mutual fund (O.P.2) had launched various schemes including UTI Master Plus scheme. Datamatics financial services Ltd., were the earlier registrar of the said scheme and with a view unify its financial services. O.P.2 appointed Karvy Computer share Pvt. Ltd., (KCPL Hyderabad) herein as a Register and transfer agent for all its scheme including the present scheme from the year 2008. The present reply is bring filed by O.P.1 on behalf of O.P.2 and 3 it is authorized to do so.
7. O.P.1 further stated that there is no cause of action for the complaint as the repurchase amount in respect of the subject investment of the complainant was settled. It is herein categorically submitted that the present investment was made to Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma, vide way of issuance of certificates in her name with the complainant as joint holders under the application No. MP-546249 under the Folio No. 50262052784.
8. O.P.1 also stated that when the complainant approached the O.P’s and reported non – receipt of the purchase amount, she was informed that as per their records provided by erstwhile registrar of the scheme the repurchase amount under the scheme stands paid on 2-4-2007 to the original holder of the certificates Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma. As depicted in the statement of account vide instrument baring No. 061145, dt. 10th April 2007 for Rs. 22,164/-. A copy of the said instrument is herewith enclosed and there was no mistake of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as the repurchase amount cheque were issued to the Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma as is substantiated. Hence, the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
9. O.P.3 filed counter and stated that there is no cause of action for the complaint as per purchase amount in respect of the subject investment of the complaint was settled. The present investment was made to Gajulapalli Sanjamma vide way of issuance of certificates in her name with the complainant as joint holders application No. MP – 546249, under the Folio No. 50262052784 and also stated that when the complainant approached the O.P’s and reported that non-receipt of the purchase amount she was informed that as per records provided by erstwhile, Registrar of the scheme. The repurchase amount under the scheme stands paid on 2-4-2007 to the original holder of the certificates as depicted in her account vide instrument bearing No. 061145, dt. 10-4-2007 for Rs. 22,164/-. Hence, the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
10. To prove the case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 & A4 and on behalf of the Opposite parties filed counter, written arguments along with documents and got marked as Ex. B1 & B2.
11. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- To what relief?
12. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant that, she purchased 500 share of Unit Trust of India under Master Plus scheme in the year 1992 from the Opposite parties. The O.P.1 is doing consultation business in shares at Hyderabad. The O.P.2 is the chairman of Unit Trust of India incorporated under the Unit Trust of India Act 1963. Hence, the Unit Trust of India can sue and the sued in the name of Chairman and O.P.3 is the Branch Office O.P.2 having office in Kadapa city. The above said 500 shares of Unit Trust of India purchased by the complainant with registration folio No. of the 500 shares is 546249. The distinctive numbers of the five certificates are covered with bearing Nos. 305939301 to 305939800 and the certificate Nos. for the five certificates are 02842239 to 02842243 and she is in need of money surrendered five original share certificates on 27-1-2011 with the O.P.1 and waited for the payment of amount. After two months she telephoned to the O.P.’s and sought about the surrender value of the shares, but the O.P.’s did not respond properly. After that she received a letter from O.P.1 on 3-2-2011 stating that the Unit bearing folio No’s. 50244499046 were switched to 50262052784 and the units under folio No. 50262052784 were redeemed on 2-4-2007 and the same was paid on 21-6-2007. The complainant surprised to see the O.P.’s letter because she never surrendered the certificates to the O.P’s prior to 27-01-2011 without surrendering the original share certificates, how could the O.P.’s paid amount to the complainant.
13 The complainant further contended that she sent the share certificates bearing folio No. MP-546249 mentioned in the five certificates. The said folio Number is no way concerned to the folio number mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 03-2-2011 reveals that the O.P’s have made payment for the share certificates on 21-6-2007. Hence, there is no relation in between the share certificate surrendered by complainant and the share certificates mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 3-2-2011.
14. Further contention of the complainant that, she got issued a legal notice to O.P.1 on 21-3-2011 but the same was proved in vain. The O.P.1 branch office gave a letter dt. 3-5-2011 to the complainant’s counsel stating that “we wish to inform you that we have been investigating the matter and we will revert to you with status very shortly, we regret the inconvenience” but till today there is no settlement of the genuine claim of the complainant it clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s.
15. Contention of O.P.1 that UTI mutual fund (O.P.2) had launched various schemes including UTI Master Plus scheme. Datamatics financial services Ltd., were the earlier registrar of the said scheme and with a view unify its financial services. O.P.2 appointed Karvy Computer share Pvt. Ltd., (KCPL Hyderabad) as a Register and transfer agent for all its scheme including the present scheme from the year 2008. The present reply is bring filed by O.P.1 on behalf of O.P.2 and 3 it is authorized to do so.
16. Further contention of O.P.1 that there is no cause of action for the complaint as the repurchase amount in respect of the subject investment of the complainant and the present investment was made to Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma, vide way of issuance of certificates with her name with the complainant as a joint holders under the application No. MP-546249 under the Folio No. 50262052784.
17. Further contention of O.P.1 that the complainant approached the O.P’s and reported non – receipt of the purchase amount, she was informed that as per their records provided by erstwhile registrar of the scheme the repurchase amount under the scheme stands paid on 2-4-2007 to the original holder of the certificates Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma. As depicted in the statement of account vide instrument baring No. 061145, dt. 10th April 2007 for Rs. 22,164/-. There was no mistake and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as the repurchase amount cheque was issued to the Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma is substantiated.
18. The contention of O.P.3 that, there is no cause of action for the complaint as per purchase amount in respect of the subject investment of the complainant was settled. The present investment was made to Gajulapalli Sanjamma vide way of issuance of certificates in her name with the complainant as joint holders application No. MP – 546249, under the Folio No. 50262052784 and also stated that when the complainant approached the O.P’s and reported that non-receipt of the purchase amount she was informed that as per records provided by erstwhile, Registrar of the scheme. The repurchase amount under the scheme stands paid on 2-4-2007 to the original holder of the certificates as depicted in her account vide instrument bearing No. 061145, dt. 10-4-2007 for Rs. 22,164/-.
19. As seen from the above averments the O.P.1 doing consultation business in shares at Hyderabad and the O.P.2 is the Chairman of Unit Trust of India incorporated under the UTI of India Act 1963. The O.P.3 is the branch office of O.P.2 having office in Kadapa. As seen Ex. A1 it reveals that, it was jointly purchased by complainant and Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma (fist name in certificate) for 500 shares of Unit Trust of India under Master plus scheme in the year 1992. The Registration folio Nos. for the 500 shares is MP-546249. The distractive numbers for the five certificates are covered with bearing Nos. 305939301 to 305939800 under certificate Nos. 02842239 to 02842243. These shares was redeemed on 2-4-2007 bearing Folio Nos. 50244499046 to 50262052784.
20. The complainant having in need of money surrendered five original certificates on 27-1-2011 with O.P.1 and waited for payment of the share amount. But in spite of lapse two months the O.P’s have not sent any amount to the complainant. After that she contacted by telephone to the O.P’s and sought out the surrender value of shares. But the O.P’s did not responded properly to the complainant. After that the complainant received a letter from O.P. 1 on 3-2-2011 the units bearing number were redeemed. The said folio Numbers is no way concerned to the folio number mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 3-2-2011. Normally the O.P’s have made payments only after taking the original certificates from the unit holders. Without taking the original certificates the O.P’s did not made any payment to the shareholders. In fact the complainant have surrendered the share certificates on 27-1-2011, but the respondent letter dt. 3-2-2011, reveals that the O.P’s have made payment for the shares certificate on 21-6-2007. There is no relation in between the share certificates surrendered by the complainant and the share certificates mentioned in the O.P’s letter dt. 3-2-2011.
21. On the other hand the contention of the O.P’s stated that the repurchase amount in respect of the said investment of the complainant was settled itself herein categorically and submitted that the present investment was made to Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma vide issuance of certificates in her name with the complainant as joint holder under application No. MP-546249 under folio No. 502620274 as seen Ex. B1 account statement. The O.P. sent letter to the complainant on 3-2-2011 stating that the units bearing folio Nos. 502444499463 were switched to 50262052784 redeemed on 2-4-2007. Hence, the original unit share numbers were changed. As seen Ex. B2 erstwhile registrar of the scheme the purchase amount under the scheme repurchase amount paid on 2-4-2007 of the original holder of Gajulapalli Pedda Sanjamma as depicted in her account vide instrument bearing No. 061145, dt. 10-4-2007 for Rs. 22,164/-.
22. As above discussion there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
23. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th July, 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of Master plus scheme bonds.
Ex. A2 O/c of legal notice dt. 21-3-2012 along with receipts.
Ex. A3 Reply given by the R1 dt. 3-5-2011.
Ex. A4 Postal receipt and acknowledgement card.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 Statement of account.
Ex. B2 P/c of cheque bearing No. 061145, dt. 9-7-2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for O.P.1 & 3
- The Chairman, Unit Trust of India, 28th Floor, Commerce Centre-I, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay
B.V.P.
