Delhi

East Delhi

CC/165/2014

RIPUSHDAN DAYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RUSAL ELECTRIFICATION - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.165/14

RIPUSUDAN DAYAL,

S/O OF Shri SHIB CHARAN DASS,

R/O 132, DAYANAND VIHAR,

VIKAS MARG EXTENSION,

1.  
2.  

 

1. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LIMITED,

A BODY CORPORATE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CORE-4,

8270579.  

7, LODI ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110003

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

  

2. BEETAL FINANCIAL & COMPUTER SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
3.  

NEW DELHI-110062;

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 11.02.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 08.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 27.02.2018

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Ripusudan Dayal, the complainant, against Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (OP-1), and Beetal Financial and Computer Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2) alleging deficiency in services.

1. The complainant had invested in OP-1’s Redeemable, Non Convertible Long Term Infrastructure Unsecured Bonds (2011-12) and OP no. 2 being the registrar & transfer agent of OP-1 was responsible on behalf of OP-1 for delivery of bonds. By the intimation letter cum allotment advice dated 15.02.2012 the complainant was allotted 4 units of Rs.5,000/- each vide Folio no. 1134126. It was stated that the bond certificates were to be sent separately in case the applicant had applied under physical mode and in case applied under demat mode, Bonds were to be credited in the demat account. The complainant having no demat account had opted for the physical bonds. The complainant has stated that OPs were duty bound to ensure the delivery of the bonds within reasonable time, which could not have exceeded 60 days. Due to non-receipt of bonds, the complainant sent an e.mail dated 19.02.2013 to OP-2 demanding delivery of bonds within 40 hours which was neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to deliver the Bond Certificates pertaining to Folio No. 1124126 of OP-1, Rs.80,000/- as compensation for Mental agony & harassment and cost of litigation.

Intimation letter cum Allotment Advice dated 15.02.2012 has been annexed as Annexure C-1, e.mail dated 19.02.2013 addressed to OP-2 is annexed as Annexure C-2 with the complaint.

2. Reply was filed by OP-1 upon service of the notice where they took preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer qua them, the forum did not have territorial jurisdiction, the complaint was barred by limitation. It was submitted that OP-2 was appointed as Registrar and Transfer Agent (RTA) for the bonds. The bond certificate bearing no. 217978 for four bond under Folio no. 1134126 was issued to the complainant by  OP-1 and were dispatched by OP-2 vide speed post under postal receipt no. ED625467563 IN on 02.05.2012, which was duly certified by the Kalkaji Post Office. It was further submitted that the consignment was neither received back as undelivered nor any intimation of non-delivery had been received from the complainant, thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed to them. It was also submitted that in case the bond certificate were not received by the complainant, duplicate bond certificate could have been issued on the application of the complainant. Receipt of mail was denied by OP-1. Rest all the contents of the complaint were denied.

OP-2 in their reply stated that they were acting as Registrar & Transfer agent. It was stated that after final allotment the original bond certificates were dispatched through speed post no. ED 625467563 IN on 02.05.2012, which were not returned undelivered from postal department. It was further stated that the e.mail sent by complainant seems to have not been received by them and no letter was sent by the complainant and the bonds were still lying in the bond holder no. 1134126. As the original bond certificate seems to have been lost in transit, the complainant could have applied for duplicate bond certificate.

3. In rejoinder to written statement of OP-1, complainant denied the contents of written statement & reiterated of his complaint.
4. Complainant also filed Rejoinder to written statement of OP-2, where he denied the contents of the reply and stated that the OP-2 had failed to file the proof of delivery and has annexed Tracking Report as Annexure C-3.

Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has got exhibited the copy of letter dated 15.02.2012 as Ex.CW1/1, print out of e.mail dated 19.02.2013 as Ex.CW1/2, Tracking report with respect to ED 625467563 IN as Ex.CW1/3.

OP-1 got examined Shri Jeetender Kumar, Senior Officer(Finance)who reiterated the contents of their reply and has got exhibited copy of authorization as Ex.RW1/1, copy of certificate of dispatch by speed post as Ex.RW1/2.

5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and for OP-1 and have perused the material placed on record. Firstly deciding on the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction, the competence of this forum is not in dispute, hence, this forum can adjudicate upon the dispute in question. Second, preliminary objection taken by OP-1 is that the present complaint was barred by limitation, if we look at the intimation letter cum allotment advice which is of date 15.02.2012 and the date of institution of complaint is 11.02.2014, which implies that the present complaint is within period of limitation under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the complaint is within the period of limitation. Now, coming to the facts of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that original bonds were not delivered to him, despite an e.mail dated 19.02.2013 written to OP-2, perusal of Ex.RW1/1 reveals that the mail was sent to the e.mail address given on the intimation letter, further, there is an evasive denial by OP-2 regarding same. During the course of arguments it was submitted by both the parties that the complainant has received the amount pertaining to bonds. However, non delivery of bonds to the complainant definitely amounts to deficiency in services. As OP-2 has not placed on record any postal receipt as proof of service, merely giving the speed post number does not absolve OP-2 from their liability. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP-2 to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                           (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                               PRESIDENT