JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The son of the complainant owned some shares which were in DEMAT form.  He had a DEMAT Account with the respondent Axis Bank Ltd.  He having died, the complainant sought transfer of the aforesaid shares in her name.  Since the value of the shares was more than Rs.1 lac, he was asked to obtain a Succession Certificate and also open a DEMAT Account. The complainant obtained the requisite Succession Certificate but the DEMAT Account was got opened in the name of her another son.  The Succession Certificate was obtained on 04.07.2012.  The DEMAT Account in the name of other son had already been opened in the meanwhile on 20.03.2009.  The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation from the respondent.  The complaint was resisted by the respondent which took a preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation as the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 31.12.2005 when the son of the complainant expired.  On merits, it was inter-alia stated in the reply filed by the respondent that the complainant was not a nominee in the DEMAT Account of her late son Arindam Sinha Roy.  Since the value of shares in the DEMAT Account of late Sh. Arindam Sinha Roy exceeded Rs.1 lac, the complainant was required to obtained a Succession Certificate as per the Business Rules of NSDL.  The respondent denied that the complainant had applied to it for opening a DEMAT Account and the same was denied by them.  It was pointed out that the request for transfer of shares was rejected for want of Succession Certificate and not for want of DEMAT Account. 

2.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for the delay in settling her claim, Rs.3 lacs as compensation for harassment and Rs.1 lac as the cost of litigation to the complainant. 

3.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 04.09.2018, the State Commission directed the respondent to pay compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  It was further directed that if the complainant opens a DEMAT Account in her personal name, the shares shall be transferred in her name.  In the event of non-compliance of the said direction, the respondent was to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the value of the securities kept in the DEMAT Account of late Sh. Arindam Sinha Roy.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.  

4.      A perusal of the letter sent by the respondent to the complainant, a copy of which is available on page no. 43 of the paper-book, would show that her request for transfer of the shares in the DEMAT Account of her deceased son was rejected on the ground that she had not obtained either the Succession Certificate or a probate/letter of administration.   In view of the Business Rules of NSDL, the aforesaid rejection was justified.  Though the petitioner obtained the requisite Succession Certificate in the year 2012, she did not apply thereafter, to the respondent for transfer of the shares in her name.  In any case, since she did not have a DEMAT Account in her own name, the securities which had been kept in the name of her deceased son, could not have been transferred in her name.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the respondent was deficient in rendering services to the petitioner/complainant.  The order passed by the State Commission awarding the token compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant/petitioner therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction particularly when the direction for payment of token compensation the cost of litigation is also accompanied by a direction to transfer the shares in the name of the petitioner/complainant on her opening a DEMAT Account in her own name.  The revision petition stands dismissed.