Delhi

StateCommission

FA/664/2013

KARVY COMPUTER LTD. & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUPAM SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:01.11.2018

 

First Appeal-664/2013

 (Arising out of the order dated 13.08.2012 passed in Complainant Case No. 238/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi)

 

1.       Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd.,

Through The Manager,

305, New Delhi House, IIIrd Floor,

Barakhambha Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

 

2.       UTI Mutual Fund,

          Through The Branch Manager,

          Netaji Subhash Palace,

          Reliance General Insurance,

          Pitampura,

          Delhi-110 034.

 

3.       UTI Mutual Fund,

          Through The Manager,

          RC Unit, UTI Towers,

          GN Block,

          Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),

          Mumbai-400 005.

…..Appellants

 

Versus

1.       Shri Anupam Sharma,

A-4/256, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-110 063.

 

2.       Poonam Sharma,

A-4/256, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-110 063.

.….Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 13.08.12 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.238/2009 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and appellants/OPs are directed as under:

“1.       Pay to complainant no. 1 a sum of Rs.11,092.42 and to complainant no. 2 a sum of Rs.11,101.17 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 4.2.2009 till payment.

 

2.        Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation for pain and agony suffered by them.

 

3.        Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.2,500/- each as the cost of litigation.”

 

2.       Briefly the facts are that the respondents herein i.e. complainants before the District Forum had filed a complaint before the District Forum stating therein that they had purchased ULIP policies having folio numbers 50916567970 and 50916567939. The date of the maturity of the said policies was 23.1.08. On 29.1.08, respondents/complainants had applied for redemption of the policies. The agent of appellants 2 & 3/OP-2 & 3 i.e. appellant-1/OP-3 instead of releasing the payment had sent a letter dated 5.2.08 intimating the respondents/complainants that their request could not be processed for want of bank mandates as per the guidelines of S.E.B.I.  In the aforesaid letter, the NAV of the units was mentioned as 17.5227% p.a. on 4.2.08. Respondents/complainants had stated that there was no change in their bank particulars as such the information asked was irrelevant.  It was alleged that due to said reason, there was delay in releasing the payment which had resulted in reduction of the NAV of the units in March, 2008.  It was stated that appellants/OPs had released the payment on the basis of NAV on 31.3.08 for an amount of Rs.1,54,878.81 in respect of respondent-1/complainant-1 and Rs.1,55,001.25 in respect of respondent-2/complainant-2.  It was alleged that had the payment being released on the basis of letter dated 5.2.08, the amount would have been Rs.1,65,971.21 in respect of respondent-1/complainant-1 and Rs.1,66,102.42 in respect of respondent-2/complainant-2 i.e. there had been a loss of about Rs.11,100/- each to both the respondents/complainants.  The respondents/complainants had sent legal notice to the appellants/OPs but of no use.  Ultimately they had filed a complaint before District Forum seeking directions to appellants/OPs to pay the principal which had resulted due to their deficiency and also to pay compensation and interest.        

 

3.       Appellant-1/OP-3 had contested the complaint by filing a reply wherein it was stated that there was no deficiency on their part and no cause of action had arisen in favour of respondents/complainants.  It was alleged that there was no valid request for redemption by respondents/complainants.  Fresh redemption requests were received and the same were processed and payments were released in accordance with the NAV of the said date.  A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.       Rejoinder was filed by the respondents/complainants wherein they had reiterated the averments made in the complaint and denied those made in the reply filed by appellant-1/OP-3.

 

5.       Respondents/complainants had filed evidence by way of affidavit of respondent-1/complainant-1. On behalf of appellant-1/OP-3, affidavit of their Branch Manager, Shri Shanti Nath Jha was filed.  After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum held that the appellants/OPs ought to have processed the case of redemption of policies on the receipt of request from respondents/complainants and could not have taken refuge in the fact that the bank mandate was received only on 31.3.08.  Ld. District Forum observed that though appellants/OPs had claimed that the bank mandate was necessary as per S.E.B.I. guidelines, in that event it could have completed that exercise before the date of redemption of policies. Ld. District Forum held appellants/OPs were deficient in providing services to respondents/complainants and held appellant-2 and 3/OP-2 and OP-3 liable jointly and severally and directed them to pay the loss caused to them along with interest as has been stated above.

 

6.       Aggrieved with the above said order, present appeal is filed.

 

7.       Ld. Counsel for appellants/OPs has submitted that furnishing of bank details along with the redemption request is mandatory as per SEBI circular dated 15.4.98 and there was no deficiency on their part in not processing the request of redemption which was received on 29.1.08 as the same was incomplete. It is submitted that on 5.2.08, appellants/OPs had written a letter to respondents/complainants that their request for redemption could not be processed for want of bank details along with their letters.  It is contended that the response to said letter of respondents/ complainants was received on 31.3.08 i.e. after a lapse of one month and 25 days and the units were redeemed immediately on the receipt of fresh redemption requested complete in all particulars including bank details and the respondents/complainants were paid the redemption amount based on the NAV of said date.  It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency on the part of the appellants/OPs.

 

8.       On the other hand, Counsel for respondents/complainants has argued that the order of the District Forum is correct and there is no illegality in the same as such it is held that after considering the material on merits, Ld. District Forum had held deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/OPs.  Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

9.       We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

         

10.     It is admitted position that respondents/complainants had purchased ULIP policies from appellants/OPs.  The date of the maturity of the said policies was 23.1.08. It is also admitted position that on 29.1.08, respondents/complainants had applied for redemption of units.  The redemption forms dated 29.1.08 sent by respondents/complainants are on record wherein there is column of Bank Details.  It is own case of respondents/complainants that said column was left blank.  The stand of the respondents/complainants is that there was no change in the bank details as such the said column was left blank.  The stand of appellant/OP is that as per S.E.B.I. Circular No.II MARP/MF/CIR/07/826/08, it was mandatory for the unit holders to give their bank details at the time of furnishing redemption request.  The relevant portion of SEBI circular is reproduced as under:

“14.8   It shall be mandatory for the investors of the Mutual Funds schemes      to mention their bank account numbers in their applications/request        for redemption. For this purposes Mutual Funds shall provide space in applications and redemption request forms.”    

 

11.   As per appellants/OPs, in the request for redemption dated 29.1.08, the respondents/complainants even did not mention the previous bank details also.  If there was no change, they could have at least stated the previous bank details instead of leaving it blank. The Ld. Counsel for appellants/OPs has pointed out that there is substantial increase in the case of fraudulent encashment of redemption cheques and due to said reason, the S.E.B.I. has made it mandatory for the unit holder to furnish their bank detail particulars.

 

12.     In the present case, since the redemption request was giving incomplete particulars, the appellants/OPs wrote immediately to respondents/complainants vide letter dated 5.2.08 that the bank details are not furnished due to which their request has not been proceeded further.  The respondents/complainants admits having received the fresh redemption request for giving complete particulars of bank accounts and the same was given to respondents/complainants on 31.3.08 i.e. after a delay of one month and 25 days of receipt of letter dated 5.2.08.  No reason for delay has been given by respondents/complainants. The NAV of the units was decreased due to lapse on the part of respondents/complainants.  In these circumstances, appellants/OPs cannot be blamed for the decrease of NAV of units as has been alleged.  Further the appellants/OPs could not have processed the case of redemption without following S.E.B.I. guidelines as per which it was mandatory on the part of respondents/complainants to have mentioned their bank account in the request of redemption.  No document has been shown to us that it was the responsibility of appellants/OPs to have collected the information regarding bank details before the date of redemption as has been observed by Ld. District Forum.

 

13.     In view of above discussion, the findings given by the District Forum are not based on the material on record.  The District Forum has not appreciated the material on record.  Therefore, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently dismiss the CC No.238/2009. 

 

14.     Appeal stands allowed.

 

15.     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information.  Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.      

 

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

• President