Delhi

New Delhi

CC/414/2006

Subrata Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. JM Morgan Stanley Retail Services Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

   

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

           (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

      ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                     NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C. 414/2006                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Subrata Das

S/o Late Sh. S.M. Das

R/o H-2/10 Mahavir Enclave

Bengali Colony

New Delhi-110045

                                                                                                    …… Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s J.M. Morgan Stanley Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.

11^th Floor Himalya House

23 Kastoorba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001                                                                        …….Opposite Party no.1

 

 

M/s DSP Merrill Lynch Mutual Fund Ltd.

@M/s DSP  Merrill Lynch Fund Mangers Ltd.

804/805 8^th Floor, Ashoka Estate

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

…….Opposite Party no.2

 

Assistant Vice President

M/s DSP Merrill Lynch Fund Managers Ltd.

Tulsiani Chambers, West Wing

11^th Floor, Nariman Point

Mumbai-400021                                                                 …….Opposite Party no.3

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant invested his hard earn money of Rs. 15,000/- DSP MERRILL LYNCH BOND FUND-RETAIL GROWTH scheme with OP-2&3 through OP-1. It is alleged by the complainant that on 21/12/2004 he made a switch request to OP-2 to switch his money from Bond Fund Retail Growth Scheme to Equity Fund Retail Scheme on 21/12/2004. It is alleged that  the switch request form was signed by both the holders. OP-2 also confirmed the transaction and issued the account statement regarding the same, he also sent the e-mail  to OP-2 regarding the switch over of the money and OP-2 vide its email dated 22/12/2004 confirmed the same.

2.        It is alleged that on 10/02/2005 when complainant enquired from OP-2 regarding the status of his fund and investment he came to know that his money was lying under old scheme and due to back office error the request of switch over was never processed and no switch over was accepted. The complainant sent various emails to the OP-2 for rectifying the error but instead to rectifying the same OP-3 vide its letter dated 11/10/2005 rejected the same on the ground that there is difference in signatures on the switch request form. It is further alleged that on the request of issuance of account statement OP vide its letter dated 14/02/2005, sent the reply that joint holder had not signed the switch request form and as such the request was not consider.  It is submitted by the complainant that he has made his best efforts for getting his money transfer from Bond Fund Retail Growth Scheme to Equity Fund Regular Scheme, but nothing has been done by OP till date, hence this complaint.

3.        Complaint has been contested by all the OPs. All the OPs have filed their respective written statement and denied any deficiency on their part. It is stated by OP1&2 that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the office of the OP is situated at Mumbai, which does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is further stated on behalf of OP-2 that the switch request form was to be signed by both the account holders but only first account holder had signed the same and as such the request was not given effect and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Rejoinder to the written statement of the OP-2&3 filed on behalf of complainant in which it is stated that he had purchased the mutual bonds of OP-2&3 through OP-1 who carry on the business or personally work for gain within the local limits of this Jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.        Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit.

6.        We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.        Perusal of the complaint along with annexure shows that the office of the OP-1 is situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. As one of the OP mentioned in the arrays of parties has its office within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Forum, hence we are of the view that we have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. It is further stated on behalf of OP-2 that the switch request form was to be signed by both the account holders but only first account holder had signed the same and as such the request was not given effect. We have gone through the transaction slip Ex.2 placed on record by OP-2&3 along with their evidence by way of affidavit, perusal of the same make it clear that the same bears the signature of both the account holders, hence, the plea taken by the OP that the slip/form does not bear the signature of both the account holders does not hold any water in hand. The rejection of the request form by the OP on the ground that the same was not signed by both the account holder was arbitrary and unjustified; this acts of OP2&3 amounts to deficiency in services, we therefore hold OP-2&3 guilty of deficiency in services.

8.        In his prayer the complainant has prayed that direction be given to OP-2 to switch his unit  to equity fund scheme from 27/12/2004 and pay the dividend besides other reliefs. As per law any investment in mutual funds are subject to market risk, the complainant has no where mentioned in his complaint as well as argued on the point of current NAV, hence, in our opinion, if the sum of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization will be refunded to the complainant, it would meet the ends of justice.

9.        In view of the above discussion, we direct OP-2&3 as under:-

1. Refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07/03/2006 till realization.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account litigation cost & mental agony suffered by complainant.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 27/11/2018.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                      (NIPUR CHANDNA )                                                                     ( H.M. VYAS )

                            MEMBER                                                                                         MEMBER