BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Michael Bhardwaj, s/o Sh. Prahlad Chand, Residence of House No.902, Sector 11, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  Manager Karvy Computer share Private Limited, SCO 371-372, Ist Floor, above HDFC Bank, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160035

2.  The Manager Karvy Computershare Private Limit Plot no. 17-24, Vittal Rao Nagar Madhapur, Hyderabad 5000081.

                                   ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                      PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Jatin Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv. for

Sh. Dheeraj Bali, Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant was having de-mat account at Jay Pee Capital.  He submitted an application to the OPs for getting the IPO of Rural Electrification Corporation Limited for purchase of share and had deposited an amount of Rs 18,900/- on 21.02.2008 for allotment of shares.  His application had not succeeded in draw of lot and no share was allotted to him, therefore, as per the norms and terms and conditions, the OPs were required to refund the amount deposited by him.  He approached the OPs for the refund of the said amount but the OPs delayed the matter by giving false excuses that the amount had already been sent by demand draft through speed post and the same had not been received back by them as undelivered. He had been approaching the OPs through every means for refund of his amount but the OPs failed to refund the amount.   Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.        Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply The OPs submitted that OP-1 was not concerned with the processing work done by the OP-2.  OP-2 was appointed as the Registrar and Transfer Agents and the offered document had also indicated that all communication with regard to the application of the complainant was made by the investors would have to be made by OP-2 at Hyderabad. The complainant came with an IPO on 18.02.2008 and the issue was closed on 22.02.2008, due to which he was not allotted any shares and therefore, the amount invested by him was sent to him within 15 days of closure of the issue as per the offered document.  A demand draft was sent to him and the same was not returned undelivered.  They had however on verifying the facts and on finding the earlier instrument was not encashed, had once again arranged a demand draft dated 10.02.2010 in favour of the complainant, which was drawn on ICICI bank for the said amount. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.        The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments. 
5.        The contention of the OPs is that a demand draft No.619049 for Rs.18,900/- which was sent to the complainant by speed post on 30.6.2008 was not received back, therefore, they presumed that the same had been delivered to the complainant.  However, a perusal of Ex.1 shows that the address of the complainant  was not correctly written thereon and, therefore, the same could not have reached the complainant. The previous draft was cancelled and a fresh draft was issued to the complainant which was delivered to him on 10.2.2010.  The complainant did not receive the earlier draft due to the incomplete address which is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It was also necessary for the OPs to have verified whether the amount has been credited from their account to the account of the complainant which they did not bother to verify due to which the complainant had to request them through emails (Annexure C-3 to C-5) and sent letter (Annexure C-6 & C-7) before filing the present complaint.  There was, therefore, clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
6.         Since the OPs have retained the amount till 10.2.2010 and compelled the complainant to file the present complaint, they are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,200/-. The amount shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 7.1.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.