O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: Lured by the advertisements of the first opposite party the complainant approached second opposite party and met the manager of the said office. He canvassed the complainant by incessant representations, the advantages of -2- investment in LIC mutual funds and assured the complainant that he would send an agent to his shop. On 20.12..2008, the fourth opposite party came to the complainant’s shop and said that she was coming as per the instruction of the second opposite party and showed her identity card issued by the LIC. Her broker No. is ARN – 42201. She also made the complainant believe that, if money was deposited in LIC Mutual funds, certificate would be issued within 4 months from the date of deposit. Only on the belief that LIC mutual fund was a reputed company as represented by the second opposite party, the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- to the fourth opposite party. Along with the amount the complainant gave her 8 blank signed Cheques too, due to the reason that she had represented that the third counter petitioner, HDFC Bank was the collecting agent of the LIC mutual fund and the back would accept Cheque only. The complainant has invested money in “LIC MF INDIA VISION FUND -3 YEARS CLOSED ENDED” scheme. As per the terms of the scheme, deposit can be withdrawn only after 3 years from the date of the deposit. After 10 days the 4th opposite party came to the shop of the complainant and gave seven acknowledgement slips. The acknowledgement slips were originally issued by the first opposite party and the official seal of 2nd opposite party was also there. Some of the slips are having the seal of the third opposite party. On 24..2..2007 the complainant got three certificates of LIC mutual funds and these certificates cover only an amount of Rs.90,000/-. Despite the repeated enquiries and demands to the first and second opposite parties to issue certificates for the balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- the -3- opposite parties had not heeded them. The act of non-issuance of certificate by the first and second opposite parties is a clear violation of the terms and conditions contemplated in the forms and that amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Since the fourth opposite party was the agent of LIC mutual funds and was working under the instruction of the second opposite party, the first and second opposite parties are liable for the act of the 4th opposite party in connection with the business of the LIC mutual funds. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to issue mutual fund receipt for Rs. 4,00,000/- or to repay the said amount with 12% interest, to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay the entire cost of the proceedings. First, second and third opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. The notice to the fourth opposite party returned with endorsement “unclaimed”. Fourth opposite party called absent and set ex-parte. The first and second opposite parties filed version together with the following main contentions. i) This complaint is not maintainable before the forum. ii) The mutual fund scheme is controlled and governed by sixth schedule of SEBI (MF) Regulations 1996. Hence jurisdiction of this forum is barred. -4- iii) The second opposite party received three Cheques for Rs. 40,000/- , Rs. 19,000/- and 31,000/- and units of LIC. M.F India vision fund for total remittance of Rs. 90,000/- were issued. and there is no provision to issue units for the unpaid amounts. iv) The scheme under LIC M.F India Vision Fund is 36 months close ended scheme from the date of allotment. The scheme alleged in the complaint was launched on 23rd November 2006 and fund and closed on 22nd December 2006. The acknowledgement produced by the complainant reveals that Cheque was acknowledged by the fourth opposite party on 27..12..2006 after the closure of the scheme. v) In this case no amount was credited in the amount of LIC. M.F India Vision Fund by the complainant. So, opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable to issue any units. There was no concluded contract between complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 or LIC. M.F India Vision Fund. vi) If the complainant invested any amount in the scheme he is liable to submit investment proof before the forum ie. name of drawee bank, Cheque No. date of Cheque and copy of passbook showing that the amount has been invested in LIC . M.F and evidencing that amount from his account has been debited in the scheme. -5- vii) This complaint is filed in collussion with 4th opposite party, agent of LIC . M.F who misappropriated fund and is facing criminal action. viii) The claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- with 12% interest and compensation is absolutely wrong as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the 1st and 2nd opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. The third opposite party’s version contained the following main points. i) Mutual fund itself is not a product of the bank and the complainant is not a consumer. 3rd opposite party has no contractual relationship with the complainant and the complainant is neither a consumer of the opposite party nor has he availed any services from the 3rd opposite party for a valid consideration. ii) Only 3 applications of LIC. M.F together with Cheque for Rs. 90,000/- was submitted by LIC MF on behalf of the complainant which was received by the 3rd opposite party. The third opposite party merely acts as a bonafide collecting banker on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite party and the same is processed in good faith and without negligence in due course. The opposite party No. 3 has discharged all its obligations in relation to the acceptance of -6- application for the issue of MF units of LIC M.F, no claim can be made by anybody against the 3rd opposite party. iii) The third opposite party has received, acknowledged and processed the following three application forms standing in name of the complainant. Bank Sl. No. Application No. Cheque No. Amount 1854 1993587 809584 40,000/- 1855 1993147 809586 31,000/- 1866 1993286 809585 19,000 /- Also the following applications were not received, acknowledged and not processed by the 3rd opposite party. Application No. Cheque No. Amount Name 1572176 2809584 40,000/- Joseph Kuruvilla 1575270 40415 2,80,000/- --do-- 1572177 2809585 39,000/- --do-- 1572178 2809586 41,000/- --do-- From out of the above mentioned 4 application nos. not processed by the third opposite party, the application No. 15725270 was deposited through the bank in the name of Sini K.P but does not pertain to the complainant and hence the averments made in the complaint to that effect are denied to be incorrect. Therefore, it is submitted that the details on the counter foil and the stamp appear to be forged and does not pertain to the bank as the details processed for the application being DD No. 595433 drawn on SBT, Kottayam for Rs. 9970/- in the name of Sini K.P. Accordingly we deny having -7- handled Cheque No. 40415 for Rs. 2,80,000/- in the name of complainant under application No. 1575270. As the complainant is not entitled for any remedy or compensation against the 3rd opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs in favour of third opposite party. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant, first, second and third opposite parties, exhibits A1 and A2 and B1 to B4. Point No. 1 Heard the complainant, first, second and third opposite parties and perused the documents. The first and second opposite parties averred that the fourth opposite party, agent is not authorized to receive any amount from the complainant and to issue slips to him. They further averred that the Kottayam branch manager alone is authorized to accept Cheque, draft etc. and supply slips for the acceptances. The third opposite party averred that the following applications were not received, not acknowledged and not processed by the bank for the complainant. Application No. Cheque No. Amount 1572176 2809584 40,000/- 1575270 40415 2,80,000/- 1572177 2809585 39,000/- 1572178 2809586 41,000/- -8- The third opposite party next averred that the second among the above mentioned 4 application numbers bearing No. 1575270 was deposited through the bank in the name of Sini K.P and does not pertain to the complainant. The first and second opposite parties stated that they received three Cheques for a total remittance of Rs. 90,000/- and issued units of LIC. M.F . India vision for the same. According to the first and second opposite parties the complainant had not made any payment except the aforesaid remittance of Rs. 90,000/- and therefore they are not liable to issue units to unpaid amounts. The complainant produced copies of 3 slips containing the seal of LIC and they are marked as Ext. A1, A1(b) & A1(c). The Ext. A1(a) copy of another slip which does not contain the seal of LIC clearly shows that the slip was issued to the complainant. But according to the third opposite party the Ext. A1(a) slip bearing Sl. No. 1575270 was deposited through them in the name of Sini K.P. All the four slips marked as Ext. A1 series are issued in the name of the complainant. The aforesaid discussions and evidence on record make it clear that the fourth opposite party, agent had committed fraud in matters which do not fall within her authority. Agent was not authorized to accept any amount from the complainant. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the agent did receive the alleged amount from the complainant. The 4th opposite party agent accepted amounts from the complainant and issued slips for the accepted amounts for which the agents are not authorized. Thus the 4th opposite party agent overstepped her brief. So, in our view the fourth opposite party, agent is liable to indemnify the complainant. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. -9- Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 the complaint is allowed. The fourth opposite party will repay Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of this order. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the complainant Ext. A1: Copy of acknowledgement slip vide No. 1572176 Ext. A1(a) “ “ “ 1575270 Ext. A1(b) “ “ “ 1572177 Ext. A1(c) “ “ “ 1572178 Ext. A2: Office copy of advocate’s notice. Documents of the opposite parties Ext. B1: Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties Ext. B2: Reply notice Ext. B3: LIC M.F India vision offer statement. Ext. B4: Policy formed conditions. By Order,
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
