IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 344/08 DATED 28-01-2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Vijaynath Bhat S/o late Narasimha Bhat, IB, ‘Sankalp Orchid’ D-23, 5th Main Road, Vontikoppal, Mysore-570002.<br /> (By A.V. Jayarama Rao., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Reliance Mutual Fund Express Building, 4th Floor, 14’E’ Road, Churchgage, Mumbai-400020.<br /> 2. Reliance Capital Trustee Co., Ltd., Express Building, 4th Floor, 14 ‘E’ Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.<br /> 3. The Manager, Reliance Mutual Fund, Shop No.1, Ground Floor Mahindra Arcade, Saraswathipuram 2nd Main Road, Mysore-570009.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05-11-2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 19-12-2008<br /> Date of order : 28-01-2009 <br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 9 days<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is that the first opposite party is in the mutual fund business had offered to sell certificates of mutual fund scheme. The second opposite party is the trustee and third opposite party is the branch of the first opposite party. That he invested Rs.30,000/- with the first opposite party for allotment of 3,000/- units of Reliance Tax Saver Fund and the same was allotted on 21.09.2005. The term of redemption was 3 years from the date of issue of units. That he had a demat account in the I.C.I.C.I Bank Limited and invested Rs.30,000/- through that Bank. In the month of August 2008. Then he applied for redemption of the said units to the first opposite party through the third opposite party and requested the first opposite party to credit the proceeds to his S.B account. The third opposite party after knowing that the complainant had changed his address he advised him to obtain a certificate from the I.C.I.C.I Bank regarding change of his address and also regarding closing of his account with the I.C.I.C.I Bank. That he had invested the money through I.C.I.C.I Bank limited who had acted as a conduit and Bank had no rule in the transaction. That closing of his account in the I.C.I.C.I Bank and change of his address have nothing to do with redemption of units. That he also approached the I.C.I.C.I Bank he on 07.08.2008 for issue of a certificate stating that the Saving Bank account is closed on 17.11.2006 and that Bank had also issued a statement of account of the demat account. When he approached the first opposite party on 19.02.2008 for redemption who told him to approach the distributor whom he latter came to know the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade is named as the agent/broker. That he requested the third opposite party to give a format of no objection certificate to be obtained from the I.C.I.C.I Bank who in turn told him that the I.C.I.C.I Bank is having a format with them and to obtain it in those formats. It is further stated that the opposite parties are wrong in insisting upon production of no objection certificate from the I.C.I.C.I Bank. That in the meantime on 21.09.2008 his units are matured and therefore stating that the opposite parties have failed to pay the redemption value of his units and thus he has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,54,500/- as compensation which is inclusive of the value of 3,000 units he had purchased.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have filed their objection to this complaint admitting in this complainant having invested Rs.30,000/- in their Tax Saver Fund-Growth Plan on 21-09-2008 and stated that they had allotted the units. It is further stated that the scheme has a locking period of 3 years from the date of purchase which would mature on 20.09.2008. It is further stated that the complainant made the investment through his online trading account held by him with the I.C.I.C.I securities limited and that the complainant held online trading account with the I.C.I.C.I securities limited and had entered into an agreement with I.C.I.C.I securities limited by accept terms and conditions for making the online investments. That I.C.I.C.I securities limited had offered the service to the complainant with receipt to the making of the investment online in pursuance of the agreement entered into between an offilid of I.C.I.C.I securities limited that is I.C.I.C.I web trade limited and the opposite parties. All the documents relating to the customers including their address details, Bank account details and the signatures are kept and maintained by the I.C.I.C.I web trade limited. Therefore they have no means to carry out the request made by investors who invest utilizing online service and the investors have to approach their online trade account service providers to materialize such request, therefore contending that they have never refused to redeem the units of the complainant but the complainant who ought to have sent his proposal for redemption of his units through the I.C.I.C.I Bank through whom he had purchased the units had not sent the request for redemption through I.C.I.C.I Bank as such they only directed the complainant to forwarded his request through the I.C.I.C.I and therefore stated that they have not caused any deficiency in their service and further by telling that they cannot directly entertain the request for redemption have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Shibin Sebastian for the opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence by reasserting what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.<br /> <br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has produced Xerox copies of certain letters exchanged between himself and the opposite parties. The opposite parties have produced copy of general terms and conditions of the scheme and copies of letter they had addressed to the complainant. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records, on the above contentions following points for arise for our consideration.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not paying the redemption value of units? <br /> 2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1:- Before we go to the merits of the points canvassed by both the parties it is relevant to refer to the scheme floated by the opposite parties in connection with Reliance Tax Saver Fund-ELSS dividend plan. The counsel for the opposite parties has produced general terms and establishment of joint business team that had been entered between the opposite parties and the I.C.I.C.I Bank. These terms say that I.C.I.C.I Web Trade and Reliance Capital AMC shall establish a business team that shall be dedicated for the purpose of implementation of this agreement and the terms further provide that the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade shall compile the request for transaction for each business day in the prescribed format to the opposite parties or to their authorized registrar. The request sent by the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade to Reliance Capital AMC or to the authorized registrar shall be deemed to be an application made by I.C.I.C.I Web Trade on behalf of his customers to Reliance Capital AMC for transacting in any of this scheme that may be offered on the website. As admitted by the complainant in the complaint and as stated in the version in para 8 of the complaint it is categorically stated that he had through the I.C.I.C.I Bank limited invested in the units that is with the opposite parties. The complainant has also admitted that he had a demat account with the I.C.I.C.I Bank. Therefore it is manifest that the complainant had invested Rs.30,000/- for purchase of 3,000 units of the opposite parties through the I.C.I.C.I Bank and as admitted in para 11 of his complaint, that I.C.I.C.I Web Trade was named as the agent/broker in this regard. Thus it is clear that the complaint had no previty of contract with complaint and he had no direct transaction with the opposite parties. All what he has done is through I.C.I.C.I Bank only.<br /> <br /> 7. The opposite parties in their version and also in their affidavit evidence have stated that they had offered service to the complainant through the I.C.I.C.I securities limited that is the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade Limited. The opposite parties have further contended that in terms of agreement between themselves and the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade, documents relating to the customers including their address details, Bank account details and the signatures are kept and maintained by the I.C.I.C.I web trade limited, therefore they have no means to carry out the request made by investors, who invest by utilizing online service. It is further stated by them that procedure and practice had been laid down to safe guard the interest of the investors to ensure that the hard earned money of the investors including that of the complainant are not fraudulently withdrawn and the investors are not duped of their investment. It is further contended by them they had requested the complainant to procure a procedure of closure of the online trading service account with the I.C.I.C.I security limited and the savings account with the I.C.I.C.I Bank limited and also to furnish proof of his new address. The evidence of the opposite parties further go to show that they never refused to redeem the units of the complainant but only had requested the complainant to send the proposal through the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade Limited, but the complainant did not forward and they could not allow redemption of the units.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite parties invited our attention to rule 6 of general terms with reads “I.C.I.C.I web trade shall be the sole operator of the accounts of the customers. Reliance capital AMC shall at all times ensure that the customers do not transact on the same folio number directly with reliance capital AMC or any of its authorized distributor. It is further submitted that the complainant despite advise to move them for redemption through I.C.I.C.I web trade or securities has not done so. It is on consideration of all this materials and un-controverted facts unfolded before us by the opposite parties and the general terms of this scheme, it is evident that the complainant who had invested his money with the opposite parties for purchase of units through his demat account had with I.C.I.C.I Web Trade has not sent his proposal for redemption through with I.C.I.C.I Web Trade though he has closed his account with the I.C.I.C.I Bank. The reasons for this is, it is the I.C.I.C.I Web Trade which has all the necessary details of the complainant who alone had to recommended for issue of units in favour of the complainant to the opposite parties is required forward a request of the complainant to the opposite parties for redemption. In the absence of such procedure the opposite parties are right in refusing the redemption of the units by the complainant which cannot be called as deficient, as the result we find no merits in this complaint and therefore with an observation that the complainant may move the opposite parties for redemption for his units through the agent/broker through whom he had invested money for redemption of those units. With this observation, we answer point no.1 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. accordingly we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to both the parties according to rules.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 28TH January 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />