Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member Heard Mr.S.G. Kurup, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms.Rashmi Manne, Learned Advocate for the respondent/complainant. 2. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 30/08/2008 in consumer complaint No.773/2003 (Kashinath Khemka & Anr. V/s. Unit Trust of India), passed by District Forum, Central Mumbai. District Forum while passing the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opponent/Unit Trust of India to pay an amount of `88,290/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from July 1999 till the date of realization and additionally cost of `2,000/- on account of litigation. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant/org. opponent-UTI preferred this appeal on the ground that the appellant/opponent is the Public Sector Undertaking and the respondent/complainant fraudulently obtained 4000 original shares plus 1333 bonus shares. The case was referred for cancellation to the Bombay Stock Exchange. Said shares were cancelled as the respondent/complainant was not entitled for those shares which were fraudulently procured by the respondent/complainant as the forgery was committed regarding signature of the transferee of the instrument. It was also contended that through Broker M/s. M.N. Dastoor & Company Ltd., a meeting to settle the matter was held, but no outcome could come forward. 4. It was submitted by Learned Advocate of the appellant that respondent/complainant obtained 4000 original shares + 1333 bonus shares by forging signature of the transferee. Therefore, there is no case for the respondent/complainant to receive dividend or bonus as the case may be under the shares. Learned District Forum did not appreciate this fact and therefore, the order under challenge was passed erroneously by the District Forum. Learned Advocate of respondent/complainant submitted that the appellant/opponent could not establish the forgery of these shares as detail inquiry was held and the appellant/opponent decided to restore all 4000 master shares held by the complainant. This fact has not been brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Commission by the appellant/opponent. 5. We have perused the record placed before us and find that somewhere in October 1993, 4000 master shares were lodged for transfer in favour of the complainant with the help of M/s.M.N. Dastoor & Co. Ltd., the broker and the shares were duly transferred in the year 1993 itself. The bonus amount of all these shares (5333) were also paid amounting to `79,995/-. Hence, holding of these shares by the respondent/complainant was valid. We have also perused that dividend on these shares was regularly paid to the respondent/complainant as deal of these shares was completed through authorized Borker M/s.M.N. Dastoor & Co. Ltd. The allegation of forgery in respect of transfer of these shares was inquired into and later on the appellant/opponent decided to restore all these shares in favour of the respondent/complainant. No other valid ground came forward for denying/prohibiting rights to deal with these shares by the respondent/complainant and we do not find any reason as to why respondent/complainant was cautioned not to deal with these shares held by the respondent/complainant. 6. We find that the appeal does not have any merit. The order of the District Forum, therefore, cannot be faulted with and we cannot take a different view than what has already been taken by the District Forum in deciding consumer complaint in favour of the respondent/complainant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 30th July 2012. | 
