Complainant Roshan Bawa through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite party company (hereinafter for short, the OP) to pay the maturity proceeds of Rs.68,025/- of the Debenture Certificate # 50695082 matured on 03.05.2015 and duly delivered to the OP in original for payment on 04.05.2015. The complainant has further stated that the OP Co’s debentures worth Rs.50,000/- were originally purchased by his wife (with of late estranged relation) on 03.05.2012 jointly with her mother and was issued certificate # 50525686 maturing on 03.05.2015 but was later issued certificate # 50695082 in lieu of the first one as duly transferred in his name on 31.07.2013. In the meantime, the OP Co at the instance of his estranged wife had (as duly advised to him) wrongly paid the matured debenture’s proceeds amounting to Rs.68,025/- to her amounting to deficiency in service and thus prompted the present complaint seeking the above prayed besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service etc along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice. And, that summarizes the complainant’s side of the story giving rise to the instant dispute under the present adjudication. It has also been alleged that his estranged wife being in the OP’s employment could stage-manage the wrong payment.
2. Upon issuance of the notice/summons, the OP Co. appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply duly admitting the factum of issuance and subsequent transfer and also the final payment of the maturity proceeds to the previous holder i.e., estranged wife of the present complainant. And, further pleaded that the debentures were in joint holding of the complainant’s wife with her mother who had not signed the ‘transfer deed’ and as such the instant transfer was not legally valid. Lastly, the OP Bank denying all averments in general and infringement of consumer rights in particular has reaffirmed the legality of its act and has finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint, with costs.
3. Both the parties have produced/filed their respective related documents in evidence to support their respective pleadings/averments, denials and rebuttals etc on record and their learned counsel have duly put forth the respective arguments that have been duly heard. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint. The complainant has produced affidavits/documents in evidence exhibited as: Ex.CW1/A being his own affidavit duly deposing the allegations and other contents of the complaint; Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 (and Ex.C4A) being copies of the relevant documents supporting the contents of the complaint etc.
4. In reciprocation, the OP Co. has produced Ex.OP1 being the affidavit of Saurav Saini the retainer advocate officer of the OP Co. and further Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP22 copies of the related documents supporting the case of the OP Co as presented by them.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the both the sides and have duly examined, considered and perused all the available material on records while adjudicating the present complaint.
6. We find the OP Co’s action as arbitrary, illegal and devoid of merit. The law is very clear on the subject matter that the once transferred financial instrument shall not be altered/changed (including transfer) suo-moto and/or at the third party instance without the ordered intervention of an authorized judicial authority with competent jurisdiction. No finance company either suo-moto or at the 3rd party instance shall appropriate (at its own) a security/ financial instrument specifically not-charged in an account to the satisfaction of an actionable claim without the holder/owner’s consent first had in writing unless through the intervention/orders of the civil court. Such ‘attachments/ alterations’ shall not be executed before having procured first an ‘authority/ consent’ under the provisions of law in all legal transfers and the Corporate shall not even exercise its privileged right of General Lien and right to set of Balances etc on the securities specifically charged for a purpose/not-charged in that particular a/c. The OP Co need to have availed of the necessary guidance from its controlling office instead of callously infringing the consumer rights of the instant complainant and make him suffer for none of his lapses/faults etc.
7. In the light of above observations and findings, we find the OP Company guilty and deficient in service and thus while partly allowing the complaint we ORDER the titled opposite party, through its present Branch Manager to allow/ release the maturity proceeds of the issued debenture certificate dated 31.07.2013 with S No 50695082 to the complainant’s credit/favor besides to pay him (the complainant) Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment. It shall however be pertinent here to say that the opposite party Company shall be at liberty to recover its inadvertently paid amount(s) but in accordance with law and in accordance with the procedure as established in law.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March 08, 2017 Member.
*MK*
