DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of June 2011
Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 14/02/2011
.
(C.C.No.25/2011)
Manickath Balakrishnan IAAS (Retd)
154, Chandranagar,
Palakkad – 678 007. - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
Manager,
Kotak Securities Ltd.,
Malabar Fort, G.B.Road,
Palakkad – 678 001. - Opposite party
(Party in person)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR. MEMBER
Complainant has filed CC/175/2010 before the Forum which was settled on 31/1/2011. On 1st February 2011 the opposite party telephoned the complainant and requested to sign as a internal adjustment agreement. The opposite party had prepared earlier one agreement and the complainant had turned down the request and not signed. So the complainant decided to close his account with the opposite party. Then he made a request on 29/1/2011 for closing D.P. Account and transferring the shares of about a dozen companies contained in that account to his new D.P. Account with UAE Exchange and Finance Ltd. Normally such transfer takes two to three days. But the opposite party has not transferred the shares. Further the complainant sent two letters to the opposite party to transfer of the D.P. account. The opposite party has not closed the DP account and transfer to his new account with UAE exchange Ltd. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and caused financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to
Transfer of shares in the new account with UAE exchange and Finance Ltd. without any further delay
Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party stated that there was no delay in executing the transfer. The opposite party had received the first request dated 29/1/2011 only on 2/2/2011. In the application the complainant merely mentioned that the securities should be transferred to the Demat Account. As per the due procedure followed by the opposite party the account holder requesting for transfer of securities to another demat account should produce documentary proof as holder of the demat account to which he intends to transfer the securities. Then the opposite party informed the complainant to give his request for transfer with the required proof regard to his Demat Account where he intends to transfer his securities. Thereafter the opposite party received the documentary proof in respect of the complainant’s demat account with UAE Exchange and Finance Ltd. on 9/2/2011. The complainant also requested for closure of his demat account with the opposite party. In the present case there were four IFCI bonds in the demat account of the complainant which had lock in period of 2015. Because of the lock in period as per the procedure followed under NSDL guidelines, the opposite party was not in a position to effect transfer of the bonds. Therefore the opposite party requested the complainant to give request in respect of the bonds. The remat request in respect of the bonds was received by the opposite party on 15/2/2011. Then the opposite party transferred the shares in the demat account of the complainant to his new account with UAE Exchange and Finance Ltd. The demat account of the complainant was closed on 17/3/2011. The opposite party stated that the time taken to close the account was solely due to the failure of the complainant to produce the necessary documents. Therefore the opposite party prays that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed affidavit. Complainant filed documents. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 marked. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issue I & II
We perused relevant documents in the record. Admittedly the complainant filed CC.175/2010 before the Forum and settled. Thereafter the complainant filed new case prays for an order directing the opposite party to transfer the shares and compensation for mental agony. The complaint was filed on 14/02/2011. The opposite party stated that the remat request in respect of the bond was received on 15/2/2011 and the demat account of the complainant were transferred on the said date. Further opposite party stated that the demat account of the complainant was closed on 17/3/2011. On the first hearing date itself both parties submitted that the account was transferred. The complainant case was that he decided to close the account with the opposite party and made a request in 29/1/2011. The complainant asked the prescribed application form. But the opposite party stated that there was no prescribed form. Further the complainant submitted another application stating all details and including documentary proof of new D.P. Account with UAE Exchange and Finance Ltd. on 4/2/2011. The complainant stated that on 7/2/2011 the opposite party sent two prescribed application forms for filing details. The complainant filed all details in the application. Again after a week the complainant received a second set of application form. This was also filed by the complainant.
Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 shows the complainant sent two letters to the opposite party. In Ext.A2, the complainant stated that returned the forms duly filled and signed. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite party. The opposite party stated that there were four IFCI bonds in the demat account of the complainant which had a lock in period till 2015. As per the procedure followed under NSDL guidelines the opposite party not in a position to effect transfer of the bonds. Hence the opposite party requested the complainant to give the request in respect of the bonds. Thus the complainant gave the remat request in respect of the bonds on 15/2/2011. Then the opposite party transferred the demat account. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite party to show NSDL guidelines to transfer of the bonds. In Ext.A1 and A2 the complainant sent application to opposite party. No evidence was produced by the opposite party to prove that reply sent to the complainant. The complainant is a senior citizen. The opposite party has not given proper instructions to the complainant for transferring the shares. The opposite party has no objection to marking of Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents. No evidence was produced by the opposite party to show the direction was given to the complainant to file remat request in respect of the bonds. After filing the complaint, the opposite party transferred the shares in the new account of the complainant with UAE Exchange and Finance Ltd.
In the above discussions, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party to delay the transfer of shares. In the result the complaint partly allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of June 2011.
Sd/- Smt. Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated
4/2/2011
Ext.A2 – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated
7/2/2011
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.500/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
