STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. State Bank of India Mutual Funds (SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd.), near K.C. Cinema, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Computer Age Management Services (P) Ltd. Unit- SBI Mutual Fund, Earlier at 148, Old Mahabalipuram Road (Adjacent to Hotel Fortune), Okkiyam Thuraipakkam, Chennai – 600097.  

Now at:- No.10, M.G.R. Salai, Nungambakka, Chennai-600 0034

……Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3

V e r s u s

1. Mr. Balwinder Singh Dhillon, H.No.2559, Sector 50-C Chandigarh. (respondent no.1/complainant)

2. State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Punjab and Haryana High Court, through its Manager.(respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2)

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. Arun Singla, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                   Respondent No.2, exparte.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.09.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant(now respondent no.1) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 (now appellants), as under:-

^“In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, and is allowed. Hence, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are directed, jointly & severally, to:-

[a]   Pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant;

[b]   To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties No.1 & 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 9 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 13.12.2011, till it is paid”.

2.               The complaint, qua Opposite Party (now respondent no.2) was dismissed by the District Forum.

3.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, by subscribing to SBI Mutual Fund, in  Feb., 2008. The same was to mature on 31.3.2011. The complainant paid the said amount, through State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, vide Cheque No. 494761 dated 31.1.2008 (infact 30.01.2008),  copy of acknowledgment of which is  Annexure C-1. The account number of the complainant was mentioned,  in the application form, as per its requirement. According to the complainant, it was agreed to between the Parties, that the maturity amount, as on 31.3.2011, would be credited, to the account of the complainant, as and when, the same became due. A letter, in this regard, was received by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.3, and the same was sent to Opposite Party No.2, with an application, for necessary action. It was  stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant,  an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- (infact 1,10,124) alone, and, that too, in the month of May, 2011, was credited, instead of Rs.1,35,000/- approximately, as per the assurance, given by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, which was due on 31.3.2011. The complainant approached the office of Opposite Party No.2, to inquire about the huge variation, in the projected amount, and the amount that he received, but it  failed to convince him. It was further stated that the complainant had suffered a pecuniary loss, on account of the  acts of omission and commission, of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing  the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.35,000/-, i.e. the amount due, to the complainant, alongwith interest @18% P.A.; compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.

4.               Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, in their joint written version, pleaded that no cause of action, accrued to the complainant, to invoke Jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was admitted that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in NFO Scheme named as “L159D SBI Tax Advantage Fund Series I-Dividend” with investment details, as Folio No. 10855367, and the  units alleged for the amount invested were 10,000/-. It was stated that the allotment date of the scheme fell on 31.3.2008 and the units were allotted to the complainant, for the applicable NAV. It was further stated that the request for  redemption of units  from the complainant was received by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, on 13.4.2011. It was further stated that the application for redemption could not be processed, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3,  as the signatures of the complainant were not tallying with the original ones. It was further stated that intimation letter was sent to the complainant, on 13.4.2011 (Annexure-I). After receiving a fresh request dated 16.5.2011, from the complainant, with duly attested signatures by the Bank Manager, the same was processed, and as per  the applicable NAV  on that date (16.5.2011), redemption proceeds, in the sum of Rs.1,10,124/-,  were directly credited to the Saving Bank Account No. 65019100671 of the complainant in State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, pleaded that no cause of action arose, in favour of the complainant, to file the present complaint, against it. It was stated that, earlier also, the complainant filed the same complaint, in the District Forum, which was dismissed in default, on  11.11.2011, but he did not file any Revision Petition, against that order, for the restoration of  complaint, and, as such, the present complaint was not maintainable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.               When the complainant was fixed for arguments, the complainant did not put in appearance, and, as such, in the absence of the complainant, under the provisions of Rule 4(8) of the Consumer Protection Rules,1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Act, (as amended upto date), the District Forum, proceeded to decide the complaint, on merits.

8.               After hearing the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

9.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3.

10.            We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, respondent no.1/complainant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

11.             Admittedly, the complainant/respondent no.1, invested a sum of Rs.1 lac, by subscribing to the SBI Mutual Fund, in  February 2008. He was allotted the units, in March 2008. The duration of the scheme was for 10 years, and the lock-in-period was  three years. It is evident, from Annexure A-1, SBI Tax Advantage Fund-Series-I, the document, which was admitted, into additional evidence, during the pendency of appeal, that the date maturity of the scheme was 30.03.2018. After the expiry of  lock-in-period, the complainant, for the first time, submitted the request  for redemption of units, which was received by the appellants, on 13.04.2011. Since, there was a mismatch of signatures of the complainant/respondent no.1, on that application, he was asked to get his signatures verified/attested, from the banker. Thereafter, a request was made by the complainant/respondent no.1, on 16.05.2011 vide Annexure-2, for redemption of units, and, as such, the proceeds of redemption  of Rs.1,10,024/-, stood transferred to the account of the complainant, on 16.05.2011, as per the Net Asset Value (NAV), prevailing on that date, which is evident, from Annexure A-2, statement of account, admitted into additional evidence, during the pendency of appeal, by the Commission. Since, the fresh credit request was made by the complainant, on 16.05.2011, he was entitled to redemption amount, as per the NAV applicable on that date and not as per the NAV applicable on 31.03.2011, though he had made a request on 13.04.2011, which was not in order, for redemption. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3. Since there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, the District Forum acted illegally, in awarding consolidated amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, cost of Rs.5,000/-, and interest, to the complainant. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse, are liable to be set aside.

12.            The Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, submitted that since the account number of the complainant was already with the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, they could directly credit the amount to his  account, when his request dated 13.04.2011,  for redemption was received by them.  It may be stated here, that when there was a mismatch of signatures, on the request application for redemption, made by the complainant, on 13.04.2011, for the first time, after the expiry of lock-in-period, it could not be said, as to whether, the same had actually been made, by him, or he wanted to continue with the Scheme, as the maturity date thereof was 30.3.2018.  It was, under these circumstances that  Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, asked  the complainant to get his signatures attested from the banker. As soon as, new/fresh request, on 16.05.2011, was received by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, from the complainant, they did not lose even a single minute, in crediting the amount of Rs.1,10,024/-, to his account, being the redemption proceeds, as per the NAV applicable, on that date. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, in any way, were negligent or committed deficiency, in rendering service. The submission of the Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, in this regard, being devoid of merit must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and respondent no.1/complainant.

14.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.

16.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 10,2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg