Date of Decision:01.09.2014

First Appeal- 1144/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 26.11.2012 passed in Complainant Case No. 356/11 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

Shri R.K. Sharma,

R/o A/4, Oriental Enclave,

32, Indraprastha Extention,

Delhi-110092.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

1. The Manager,

M/s. Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,(CAMS), Unit Tata Mutual Fund, 3^rd Floor, Kanchenjunga Building,

Barakhmba Road, New Delhi-110001.

1. The Manager,

M/s Tata Mutual Fund,

New Delhi-1.

1. Learned Shri C.K. Chaturvedi, Sh. S.R. Chaudhary, Ms Asha Kumar, District Fora, New Delhi, M-Block, New Delhi.            
2.  

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

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

2.      To be referred to

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. Heard.
2. There is delay of more than one year in filing the present appeal.  The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay have been gone through.  The same are not believable.  Even the application is also not supported with the affidavit of the appellant.
3. We have gone through the impugned order.  The grievance of appellant before the District Forum was that he had not received the redemption amount of TATA Tax saving fund from the respondent for Rs. 20,666.98 for 456.508 units which appellant opted to redeem on 18.2.2011.
4. The District Forum has observed that the complaint was filed by the appellant on 28.3.11 and on 30.3.11 the appellant had received a cheque of Rs. 20,464.88 towards the redemption and also interest of Rs. 185/- for the delay from the respondent.  Despite that the appellant continued with the complaint and did not disclose having received the aforesaid amount from the respondent.  The District Forum observed that the claim had already been satisfied as such no relief was given to him. 
5. The grievance of the appellant is that he has received Rs. 200/- less.  Considering his conduct before District Forum and also delay in filing the appeal, we do not

find any reason to interfere with impugned order.  Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.