Delhi

StateCommission

A/08/403

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                         Date of Decision : 29.02.2016

                        Date of arguments heard : 05.02.2016

First Appeal  No.403/08

(Arising out of the order dated 11.12.07 passed in Complaint Case No.538/03 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.)

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Unit Trust of India

Presently known as

Administrative of the

Specified Undertaking

Of Unit Trust of India

Through

UTI Technologies Services ltd.

174-175 Rajendra Bhawan

Rajendra Place, New Delhi.

………..Appellant

 

Versus

1. Sh Pradeep Jindal

S/o Sh. K.B. Jindal

R/o 5/66, Ist Floor, K.C. House

Padam Singh Road

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi.

2. Sh. P.K. Wadhwa & Com.

Flat No. 301, Pad Mohan House

5/67,  Padam Singh Road

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi.

3. Ms. Sneh Lata Singla

A 3, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017.

4. Ms. Anupan Singla

A 3, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017

…….Opposite Party

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

S.C. Jain (Member)

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.         OP-1 has preferred the present appeal against order dated 11.12.07 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, K.G. Marg in CC No.538/03. The case of complainant was that he was holding 2990 units in the books of OP-1/appellant in 1964 Scheme as on June, 1965.  The OP-1/appellant cancelled the said certificate and ordered retention of all dividend and bonuses in utter disregard of rules. He demanded payment of said units + 290 bonus units @ Rs.17.50 per unit which was the rate prevalent on 17.9.97 on which date OP-1/appellant deprived him to right to sell the units. The amount comes to Rs.57,400/- + interest / divided Rs.12,000/- as announced by the OP-1/appellant.
2.         The appellant contested the case on the grounds that it transferred the units in good faith in the name of transferee on 23.3.95 and dispatched at the recorded address of complainant. Further 150 units were transferred from Kumari Singla Anupma and 140 units were transferred from Ms. Singla Sachdeva. The same were handed over to Sh. Praveen Wadhwa, broker, Stock Exchage, New Delhi with an instruction to get the certificates upgraded, consolidated. Smt. Singla Sachdeva alleged fraud and forgery and the complainant was informed to which complainant did not send any reply. The complainant was informed that the certificate were never transferred by the transferors. Keeping in mind the inter party dispute, OP-1/appellant put stop on the above mentioned unit certificates and informed both the parties to approach appropriate court of law. The  transferor lodged FIR at Malviya Nagar Police Station on 1.3.2000 and a case was registered under 406 IPC against unknown accused. The police seized original documents relating to transfer from the office of OP-1/appellant.
3.         The District Forum held that the investors who purchase shares from the registered broker is guaranteed safety by Government of India (SEBI) as broker is responsible for genuineness of shares/units, genuineness of signatures of sellers, share being found stolen or result of fraud. Hence OP-1/appellant & OP-2 who was broker was directed to pay the amount on furnishing Idemnity bond by the complainant. Rs.50,000/- were directed to be paid as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigations.
4.         During the course of arguments, the Counsel for the respondent/ complainant drew our attention to the statement of accounts sent by the appellant/OP-1 showing the maturity value of US 64 bonds of the complainant as on 30.6.08 at Rs.39,300 + unclaimed income and total of both as Rs.73,922.66. The same has been filed by the respondent alongwith his written arguments filed on 2.2.15. The Counsel for the appellant expressed his willingness to pay the aforesaid amount subject to respondent/complainant giving an undertaking that in case he is not found to be the law full owner of the units, he would refund the said amount to the appellant.
5.         We feel that the order of the District Forum already takes care of interest of the interest of the appellant. The complainant had been directed to furnish Idemnity Bond to OP-1/appellant to the tune of Rs.70,000/-.
6.         We do not find that the appellant was deficient in service. So it can not be burdened with mental agony or harassment or litigations charges. Accordingly the impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant will pay Rs.73.922.66 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. thereupon from 1.7.08 till date of refund to the respondent No.1/complainant subject to his furnishing of indemnity body.
7.           A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also one copy be sent to the District Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi for information.

          File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member

ak