Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the impugned order, by which the instant complaint case has decreed in favour of the Respondents, this Appeal is moved by SBI Mutual Fund.

The complaint case was filed by the Respondents/Complainants over the harassments faced by them in getting the redemption value of two certificates.   The case of the Respondents/Complainants was that, though their banker was United Bank of India, the Appellants issued the redemption cheques on Union Bank of India for which they could not get the maturity value in time.  Thereafter, they had to run from pillar to post to get their legitimate claim settled.

The counter case of the Appellants is that owing to incorrect capture of bank name, the same mismatched with investment application for which the amount could not remitted directly to the account of the Respondents/Complainants and two cheques were sent to them.    Subsequently, on the basis of their application, due payment was directly remitted to their account. 

Parties were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record gone through.

Admittedly, the Appellants made mistake in capturing the bank details of the Respondents/Complainants in respect of Folio Nos. 9771139 and 9771147.  It is not understood, when the same was detected at the time of remitting redemption proceeds , why necessary correction was not made instantly taking due note of bank details provided in the application forms. 

In any case, if the Appellants indeed were in two minds, they could seek due clarification from the Respondents/Complainants also.  That too was not done; instead two cheques were issued on Union Bank of India which was not the actual banker of the Respondents/Complainants.  

Not only that, as no communication was made from the side of the Appellants regarding settlement of maturity claim of the Respondents/Complainants on 24-09-2010, the latter had to unnecessarily pursue the matter with higher echelon of the Management of Appellants for days together.

Last but not the least, it is admitted by the Appellants that as per the SEBI guidelines, it is mandatory to process redemption request within 10 business days.  In this case, the Respondents/Complainants staked necessary claim on 06-09-2010.  Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellants to do the needful on or before 16-09-2010; whereas, due payment was credited to the account of the Respondents/Complainants on 24-09-2010.  In such circumstances, the rational of paying interest for only 3 days remains baffling. 

It is clear from the above that the Respondents/Complainants had to suffer immensely on account of the lapses on the part of the Appellants.  Certainly, they did not deserve this. 

Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order save and except exonerating the Respondent No. 2 from all liabilities in the matter given that it happens to be a separate entity and it was not at fault in any way for the undue sufferings of the Respondents/Complainants.

The Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.