C.C. No. 49 of 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER Monday, 18
th May 20092 the complainant got issued a notice to both the respondents on 16-10-2008. The R1 gave reply with false allegations that there was a computer mistake and the matter would be settled with correct amount. Therefore, there was deficiency of service and hence, the complaint was filed for Rs. 66,862-15Ps with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 3. The respondents filed a counter admitting that the UTI Mutual Fund had launched various schemes and plans including UTI Energy - Fund. M/s Karvy Computer share Pvt. Ltd., was Registrar and Transfer Agent for all the schemes and plans including UTI Energy Fund. The complainant invested only Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed and redemption proceeds were paid and hence, there was no short payment as alleged by the complainant. 4. On 15-2-2008 the complainant invested Rs. 10,000/- and issued a cheque bearing No. 142353 for Rs. 10,000/- dt. 15-2-2008 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kadapa towards application amount. It was very clear in the application form. The complainant had to submit his bank statement pertaining to the said amount maintained with the Corporation Bank, Kadapa. The application was processed by the Registrar of the Opposite parties. Due to punching mistake at the time of processing, the amount was mentioned Rs. 1,00,000/- in stead of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant later applied for redemption of the units in September 2008. So the redemption was processed for correct number of units. The complainant was to be allotted 791.139 units for the investment of Rs. 10,000/- but the amount was shown as Rs. 1,00,000/- and the units were shown as 7911.392. After receiving the notice the Registrar of the Opposite parties gave a reply and clarified the factual position. It was not correct that the complainant had invested an amount on 19-3-2008. Therefore, there were no merits in the complaint and there was no cause of action and the complaint may be dismissed with costs. C.C. No. 49 of 20093 5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B3 were marked. 7. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant purchased some units under UTI Energy Fund Growth Plan on 19-3-2008 vide file No. 501218278721 @ 10-13Ps per unit. He filed Ex. A2 UTI Mutual Fund Account statement which disclosed that the complainant purchased 7,911-392 units for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the price as on 19-3-2008 was Rs. 1,26,400/- and current value was Rs. 80,142-40. The complainant filed Ex. A1 account statement copy dt. 11-9-2008 for the same units and the price per unit as on 10-9-2008 @ Rs. 9.41 Ps. and purchase amount was Rs. 1,00,000/- and the current value of the units was Rs. 74,446-20. But the respondents filed a Xerox copy of the application for purchase units under Ex. B3 which disclosed the amount of investment was Rs. 10,000/- by way of cheque No. 142353, dt. 15-2-2008 on Corporation Bank, Kadapa. The respondents also filed Xerox copy of Ex. A1 & A2 as under Ex. B2 and B1 respectively. The complainant argued that he invested Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchase of units but it was mentioned in the form as Rs. 10,000/-. The respondents contended that the investment amount was only Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant and the complainant took an opportunity of mistake committed in the account statement prepared by the R1 company and claimed more amount to get unlawful gain and redemption proceeds were also paid already. In these circumstances the dispute was with regard to investment of the amount i.e. whether Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the respondents or Rs. 1,00,000/- as contended by the complainant and claim of more redemption amount. It would require more oral and documentary evidence. The C.C. No. 49 of 20094 complainant got issued a notice to R1 and R2. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A3. The R1 sent a reply to the complainant. It was Ex. A4. Thus it would be decided in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not under the C.P. Act in the District Forum, Kadapa. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs, directing the complainant with liberty to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 18 MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 Account statement issued by R1 in favour of the complainant, dt. 11-9-2008. Ex. A2 Copy of account statement issued in favour of the complainant, dt. 19-3-2008. Ex. A3 Copy of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the respondents dt. 16-10-2008. Ex. A4 Reply notice from R1 to complainant’s advocate, dt. 13-11-2008. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Ex. B1 X/c of account statement issued in faovur of the complainant, dt. 19-3-2008. Ex. B2 X/c of account statement issued in favour of the complainant, dt. 11-9-2008 along with redemption receipt. Ex. B3 X/c of UTI Energy application form. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate. 2) The Chief Representative, UTI, M.F. Kadapa. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 49 of 2009th May 2009 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 49 / 2009 S. Mahaboob Peer, Muslim, aged about 42 years, Residing at D.no. 6/423-1, Near Mattipeddapuli, Trunk road, Kadapa. ….. Complainant. Vs. 1. The Accounts Officer, UTI Mutual Fund TUI Towers, GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai. 2. The Branch Manager, UTI Mutual Fund, 2/790, Sairam Towers, Nagarajupet, Kadapa city. ….. Respondents. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 12-5-2009 in the presence of Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate, for complainant and Chief representative of UTI MF, Kadapa appeared for R1 & R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased units from R2 for Rs. 1,00,000/- under UTI Energy Fund – Growth plan group on 19-3-2008 vide file No. 501218278721. The market value of a unit at the time of purchase was Rs. 10.13 Ps. The respondent allotted units and issued account statement to the complainant. Whenever, the complainant had intention to sell away the units, the respondent should deliver the amount as per the market value. The complainant had intended to sell away the units. He approached R2 and submitted the documents. The R2 informed that the market value of the complainant’s units was Rs. 74,446-20 as on 8-9-2008 and hence; the complainant accepted and fulfilled the formalities. The R1 informed that the amount would be sent at an early date through the complainant’s account. Some time later Rs. 7,583- 85Ps was credited into account of the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the R2, who gave an evasive reply but expressed to inform to R1. Finally
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | |
