Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/37/2022

Franklin Templeton Asset Management Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Shiv Kumar Goyal - Opp.Party(s)

Shreyansh Mardia,Rahul Singh Meratwal

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 37/2022

 

Franklin Templeton Asset Management ( India) Pvt.Ltd. Through its Asstt. Manager Mr. Ankit Jain having its branch office at Shop No. 18, 2^nd floor, Lakshmi Complex, M.I.Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

Vs.

Dr. Shiv Kumar Goyal s/o late Mr. Dwarika Prasad Goyal r/o 77/161, Aravalli Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

 

Date of Order 12.7.2022

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Acting President

Hon'ble Mr. Ramphool Gurjar- Member

 

Present:

Mr.Shreyansh Mardia learned counsel for the appellant

Dr. Shiv Kumar Goyal respondent complainant in-person

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, ACTING PRESIDENT )

2

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ opposite party against the order of learned District Consumer Commission, Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur dated 30.12.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.131/2020.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that the respondent /complainant filed a complaint averring therein that he is a qualified medical doctor presently serving on the post of Asstt. Professor in SMS Medical College/ Hospital, Jaipur. He invested in Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund since 2006. As per the complainant the fund was 'Risk Free Debt Fund' and he invested Rs. 5 lakhs on 22.9.2017. According to the complainant on the date of investment the NAV of the fund was 19.265 per unit as such total 25953.263 units were issued in favour of complainant. According to the complainant the appellant/opposite party suddenly lowered down its NAV on 16.1.2020. Thereafter the complainant filed on-line application for withdrawal of money and the company with a view to gain unlawfully, paid Rs. 50,000/- less against the investment done by the complainant. In the complaint the complainant has stated that the appellant company had

 

3

 

invested its 6.33% fund in Vodafone Idea Company's Bond/Instrument/Debt Paper. As per the complainant the Vodafone company was still working and did not commit any sort of default or had become bankrupt whereas the appellant company has reduced the NAV stating the Vodafone company to have become insolvent. In his complaint the complainant has complained that the appellant/opposite party has lowered down the NAV on flimsy grounds and as such has committed deficiency of service and has adopted unfair trade practice. In his complaint the complainant has demanded Rs. 50,000/- alongwith Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for mental, economic and physical loss and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The appellant/opposite party did not appear before the learned DCC despite service of notices of complaint therefore, learned DCC proceeded ex-parte against it and had passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 on the basis of averments and evidence of respondent/complainant alone.

 

In this appeal alongwith the memo of appeal the appellant/opposite party has submitted various documents viz.

 

4

 

Addendum to the scheme information documents of various schemes, Folio statement, Scheme information document, Key information documents, Notice-cum- Addendum to the scheme information document, Franklin Templeton Fixed income portfolio update, Circular of SEBI and Rating rationale.

 

On the basis of these documents the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contends that the averment of respondent complainant that fund was risk free was totally wrong. He has referred to the relevant documents, relating to the nature of fund, adduced alongwith the memo of appeal. He also contends that respondent/complainant made the investment for commercial purpose as such he is not included in the definition of 'consumer' u/s 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

This appeal was admitted on 15.3.2022 and the respondent/complainant was called. The respondent/ complainant has appeared in-person and has argued the appeal himself.

 

5

 

Having heard the rival submissions of both the sides and after perusing the record of the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur and also the documents adduced alongwith memo of appeal, we are of the view that this matter deserves decision on merits on the basis of pleadings/averments of the either side and since the learned DCC has proceeded ex-parte against the appellant as such we deem it proper that the case be remanded back to the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur with the direction to take the response and evidence of the appellant/opposite party ( both oral and documentary) and decide the case afresh. It is made clear that the respondent/complainant will be free to file rejoinder, if any to the response filed by the appellant/opposite party and also will be at liberty to file additional evidence to substantiate his case or rebut the case of appellant/ opposite party.

 

On the basis of above discussions the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 of the learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur is set aside and the case is remanded back with the above direction. It is also made clear that the appellant/opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost to respondent/complainant prior to filing

 

6

 

of the reply of the complaint.

 

Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned

DCC Jaipur 2^nd Jaipur on 23.8.2022.

 

(Ramphool Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Acting President

 

 

nm