BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 30th day of June, 2009
C.C.No. 72/09
Between:
L. Raghu Ramaiah, S/o. L. Venkata Setty,
H.No.46-1A-5, Saptagiri Nagar, Kurnool - 518 002.
… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited,Represented by Chief Executive Officer Cum M.D.,Corporate Office,
Express Building , 4th Floor,14 E Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
2. M/s. Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager,
Unit No. 7,Plot NO. 6-3-1093, 6th Floor, V.V. Vintage Boulevard, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082.
3. N. Nagesh Kumar,Agent of Reliance Mutual Fund,
40-447-18, Gipson Colony., Kurnool - 518 002.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant, and the opposite party No. 1 to 3 is called absent set-exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No. 72/09
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties 1 and 2 with joint and several liability to pay to the complainant interest at 24% p. a on Rs.20,000/- from the date of drawing of the said cheque till realization , to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardship at the conduct of the opposite parties and the cost of the case alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in retention of the amount of Rs.20,000/- , sent for its investment in mutual fund of growth plan with growth option , for about one year and returning the said amount without interest and without any cogent reason and the said act of illegal retention of the investment of the complainant by the opposite parties and its belated returning without interest caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant as the alleged reason for belated return as address insufficiency is false and invented to avoid the liability .
2. In pursuance of receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No. 3 remained absent and there by was set-exparte the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed its written version through its authorized representative denying any of its liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed besides alleging its concern with Reliance Capital Asset Management Limited , Reliance Mutual Fund and M/s. Karvy Computer Share Private Limited , Mutual Fund schemes launched pursuant to regulations and circulars of SEBI , Reliance Natural Resources Fund , admits the receipt of complainant’s application of investment for the scheme of Reliance Natural Resources but says the said application could not be entertained for want of complainant’s Pan Card which is essential as per the SEBI circular No. MRD / DoP / Circular – 05 / 2007 dated 27-04-2007 as it shall be the sole identification number for all the participants transacting in the securities market irrespective of the amount of transaction with effect from 02-07-2007 , and so the rejection letter was dispatched to the complainant enclosing the warrant towards the refund of the purchased amount of Rs.20,000/- through First Flight Courier on 29-03-2008 vide consignment No. ZV 7760881 but the said consignment returned with reason address insufficient and so the undelivered warrant of the complainant was dispatched to Hyderabad office on 12-05-2008 for its onward dispatch to its investor . On the complaint of the complainant as to non receipt of redemption warrant , the Hyderabad RMF branch has dispatched on 12th September, 2008 to Kurnool RMF branch through Trackon Courier vide consignment No. 1219807 and the complainant has collected in person the said dispatch from RMF Kurnool on 20th September, 2008 and resubmitted the warrant at RMF , Kurnool for revaluation on 29th September as 6 months period after to 28-03-2008 expired at that time marking stop payment on the earlier issued warrant and the complainant has collected the said revalidated warrant on 10-12-2008 from RMF, Kurnool in person and got clearance of amount to his Bank account on 11-12-2008 . So there is any deficiency or negligency on its part and so the claim of the complainant being baseless , false , frivolous and mischievous seeks for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 and its sworn affidavit , the opposite party side except taking reliance on its written version contentions and the enclosures made there to did not even further contest the case by causing any interrogatories to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and filling any sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version contentions and the enclosures made there to and questioning the bonafidies of the complainant’s cause of action and the claim , remaining absent in further proceedings of the case .
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of the opposite parties and there by any of their liability to the complainants claim.
6. As the written version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 admit the receipt of the complainants application for investment of Rs.20,000/- by enclosing to its written version a Xerox of said application , the Ex.A1 - the Xerox copy of the application of the complainant filed by the complainant envisaging said fact , and the Ex.A2 receipt of said application by opposite parties , is warranting any further appreciation than what it denotes .
7. The Ex.A4 is the covering letter dated 04-12-2008 of the opposite party enclosing there to a cheque for Rs.20,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A3 . It was addressed to the complainant to the address mentioned in Ex.A1 application form . The complainant contends in reference to the Ex.A3 and A4 that the opposite party has retained his investment made under Ex.A1 for about 11 months and returned the investment vide Ex.A3 and A4 on the mere reason of PAN missing without paying any interest for said retained period . The written version of the opposite party contends on finding the defect in complainant’s application for want of PAN particulars of the complainant, the said application was rejected as per the guidelines of SEBI circular No. MRD /DoP / CIR -05 / 2007 dated 27-04-2007 and the refund of the said investment amount was sent to the complainant on 29th March 2008 through First Flight Courier vide consignment No. ZB 7760881 and the said was returned undelivered with the reason address insufficient . The Xerox of First Flight Couriers Limited enclosed to the written version pertaining to consignment No . ZB 7760881 envisages the date of booking as 29-03-2008 and its return as address insufficient . But in the absence of said consignment note envisaging the particulars to whom it was addressed to and the material retuned back to the opposite party under said consignment , it is difficult to hold the relevancy of the above document and its concern as one of the complainant alone . Therefore there appears any cogent material from the opposite party side to believe its bonafidies in the said contentions .
8. The Ex.A5 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 28-01-2009 caused to the opposite parties at the instructions of the complainant where in the grievances of the complainant were taken mention as to the submission his application dated 29-01-2008 along with cheque for Rs.20,000/- for its investment in Mutual Fund Growth Plan and Growth option and the refund of the amount of said investment in December, 2008 without any cogent reason and without paying any interest on said retained amount of interest. Even though the Ex.A6 reply to Ex.A5 alleges the rejection of complainants application for want of PAN card of the complainant and dispatch of the rejection letter along with refund of warrant amount to the complainant vide consignment No. ZB 7760881 and its return as address insufficient , but the said contention appears to be bearing any truth as the said dispatch consignment was stated in reply notice as of 29-03-2009 .
10. The written version of the opposite parties and the Ex.A6 allege the complainant has personally collected the refund cheque on 10-12-2008 from its Reliance Mutual Fund Branch at Kurnool . In the absence of any supporting affidavit from the Reliance Mutual Fund Branch , Kurnool the said contention of the opposite party remains hard for believing the truth in it. Therefore there appears any deligencies or bonafides in the conduct of the opposite parties in retaining the amount of investment of the complainant for a considerably long period .
11. When an application has been sent along with required amount for investment in certain fund it is upon the opposite party who is carrying said scheme to scrutinize the properness of said requisition promptly within reasonable time and if the said application is liable for rejection for want of compliance of any mandatory provisions governing said scheme it must promptly cause transmission of said rejected application and the amount sent there under to the complainant and when the opposite party has defaulted in that line and retained the amount with out any substantiated
cause the said conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to the deficiency of service on their part and there by entitles the complainant to have compensation for the consequences of said deficiency of service at the liability of the opposite parties.
12. From the facts and circumstances available in record the amount of investment of Rs.20,000/- made to the opposite parties under Ex.A1 dated 29-01-2008 was in retention with the opposite parties till 04-12-2008 vide Ex.A3 and A4 ,the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the said investment of Rs.20,000/- from 29-01-2008 to 04-12-2008 and for a cost of Rs. 1,000/- as the complainant was driven to the forum , by the opposite parties at their deficient conduct , for redressal of his grievances.
13. As any relief was sought in complaint pleadings against the opposite party No. 3 the case against the opposite party No. 3 is dismissed
14. In the result of the above discussion , the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their joint and several liability to pay to the complainant interest at 12% p. a on Rs.20,000/- from 29-01-2008 to 04-12-2008 along with cost of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their joint and several liability shall pay the supra stated award to the complainant with an interest at 12% p.a from the date of default till realization. .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of June,,2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of application of the complainant for investment of Rs.20,000/- in Reliance Natural Resource Fund.
Ex.A2. Acknowledgment for receipt of application along with cheque.
Ex.A3. Xerox copy of HDFC cheque dated 04-12-2008 for
Rs.20,000/- in favor of complainant.
Ex.A4. Covering letter for Ex.A3.
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice dated 28-01-2009 along with
Postal receipts and acknowledgements. ‘
Ex.A6. Reply dated 12-02-2009 to Ex.A5.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
