The brief history of the case of the complainant is that being attracted by OP.1, she deposited Rs.24, 985/- in Sundaram BNP Paribas selected MID Cap Dividend Scheme on 10.09.2007 floated by OP No.2 and the OP.2 issued Statement of Accounts(SOA) vide Folio No.131853/61. It is submitted that the complainant wanted redemption of her deposit through OP.1 on 15.03.2010 but the OP.1 advised the complainant not to opt for redemption as the market is subdued then. Again the complainant submitted SOA for redemption during July, 2015 but the OP.2 informed the complainant that the a/c has been closed on 17.3.2010 and the redemption value of Rs.31, 904.99 has been credited to the a/c No.10838957746 belongs to one G. Sanayasi Giridhar at SBI, Damanjodi. The complainant submitted that the above a/c number has been put by the Agent-OP.1 in the scheme
application and Mr. Giridhar is one of the friends of the husband of the OP.1. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay the redemption value @ highest NAV prevailing in the month of July, 2015 when the complainant made application for redemption with interest @ 18% p.a. besides Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about deposit of Rs.24, 902/- by the complainant in Sundaram BNP Paribas Selected MID Cap dividend scheme on 10.9.2007. It is contended that after maturity of the scheme the OP.2 deposited Rs.31, 904.99 on 22.3.2010 in the accounts of the complainant which was provided by her in the purchase application form. The OP further contended that the complaint is barred by time. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant and OP No.2 have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials on record.
4. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.24985/- in Sundaram BNP Paribas selected MID Cap dividend scheme of OP.2 on 10.9.2007 vide Folio No.131853/61. The case of the complainant is that on 15.3.2010 she submitted SOA for redemption through OP.1 but the said OP advised the complainant not to insist redemption as the market is subdued. When she again applied for redemption during July, 2015 she was informed by OP.2 that the said a/c has been closed on 17.3.2010 and redemption value of Rs.31, 904.99 has been credited to the a/c. No.10838957746 of one G. Sayanas Giridhar at SBI, Damanjodi and thereafter repeated correspondence of the complainant to that effect did not yield any result. The complainant further stated that the OP.1 had put the SB a/c number of Mr. Giridhar in the scheme application knowingly.
5. It is seen that the complainant has filed SOA for the year 2007-08 issued by OP.2 in which the a/c No. SB 10838957746 has been mentioned. The complainant did not object the said accounts if she found it wrong. In the back side of SOA there is a space for change of a/c and address if required. The complainant has not changed that a/c number then. Further it is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for redemption during March, 2010. In the transaction slip dt.17.3.2010 the complainant has signed, the true copy of which is filed by OP.2. In that slip there was also a provision to change the bank a/c number on its back side. The complainant had also failed to change her a/c number there.
6. Further it is an admitted fact that in the scheme application, a/c No.10838957746 was mentioned and the OP.2 on receipt of redemption application dt.17.3.2010 had closed the a/c of the complainant and credited the value on 22.3.2010 to the a/c number available in the scheme application. Hence we find no fault on the part of OP.2 in crediting the redemption value in the accounts number supplied by the complainant in her scheme application.
7. The OP No.2 has challenged the limitation of this case as it has been filed after 5 years from the date of redemption. It is seen that the redemption was allowed on 22.3. 2010 and the complainant has filed this case on 17.2.16. As such the cause of action started from 22.3.2010 and it continued for 2 years as per Sec.24A of C. P. Act. As the complainant has filed this case after 5 years from the date of redemption, her case is hit under limitation.
8. In the above premises, it was ascertained that the case of the complainant is barred by time and also has no merit. In the result we dismissed the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
