DATE OF FILING : 29.7.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.160/2010
Between
Complainants : 1. Augustine M. Sebastian,
Mattel House,
Vengalloor P.O.,
Thodupuzha – 685 584,
Idukki District.
2. Anju Sebastian,
Mattel House,
Vengalloor P.O.,
Thodupuzha – 685 584,
Idukki District.
3. Jose Augustine. S.,
Mattel House,
Vengalloor P.O.,
Thodupuzha – 685 584,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Party : The Chief Manager,
U.T.I. Financial Centre,
Alappattu Towers,
M.G. Road, Ernakulam,
Kochi – 35.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The first petitioner is the father/guardian of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The first petitioner made investments for his minor children (1) Sheena Sebastian under Folio No.50816834024 and investor No.193044441, (2) Anju Sebastian under Folio No.50816834025 and investor No.193044468 and (3) Jose Augustine. S, in Folio No.50816834026 and investor No.193044476 in Unit Linked Insurance Plan ((ULIP) of the Unit Trust of India, the opposite party. All the children attained majority and are entitled to appropriate and handle the investment themselves. During the last week of July, 2009 Sri. K.J. Luka, the UTI agent advised to switch over these investments to the Dividend yield fund of UTI for better returns. The agent supplied the complainant with necessary application forms which are duly filled, signed and submitted at the UTI Financial Centre, Kochi on 30th July 2009 by the first petitioner and was acknowledged by UTI on 30th July 2009. But no information was given to the petitioners by the opposite party till 11.11.2009. So the first petitioner sent a letter to the opposite party representing the investors on 11.11.2009 under certificate of posting. Subsequently a statement of accounts dated 24th March, 2010, shifting the investment of Sheena Sebastian was received. So the first petitioner sent a registered letter to the opposite party on 14.4.2010 requesting the opposite party to issue the statement of accounts of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. So the petitioner received a statement of account on 30.4.2010 of Sheena Sebastian converting/shifting her investment to the Dividend Yield Fund. The opposite party never switched over the investment of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to the Dividend Yield Fund as per the application given by the petitioner. The above action of the opposite party caused financial loss to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. As on 30th April, 2010, the value of Sheena's investment is Rs.1,03,147.94. The value of the investment of the 2nd petitioner, Anju Sebastian whose investment is in UTI and not converted into Dividend Yield Fund, so the amount is only Rs.90,015.39 and that of Jose Augustine is Rs.90,015.39. No reason have been acknowledged by the opposite party to the petitioners about the same. So the petition is filed for getting a direction to switch over the investment as per the application given by the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to the Dividend Yield Fund as on 31.7.2009 and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, who is the Branch Manager of M/s.Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd., Cochin, it is stated that the head office of the UTI Mutual Fund is located at Mumbai and the opposite party herein is the Branch Office of UTI Mutual Fund at Cochin. So they are filing the affidavit cum reply on behalf of the opposite party as per the authority letter issued by the opposite party on 28.9.2010, as per the information received from the Registrar and Transfer Agent, M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. There are three investments standing in the name of 2nd and 3rd complainants and also in the name of Sheena Sebastian under ULIP. The said investments were made when these investors were minors. These investments were submitted for conversion to UTI Dividend Yield Fund on 31.7.2009. Out of the above three investments, the investment pertaining to Sheena Sebastian was converted to Dividend Yield Fund and opted Dividend Re-investment option as admitted in the complaint and other two applications of the complainants were also considered and allotted units. But due to technical reasons the allotted units were rejected and the same was also informed to the complainants. On receipt of the notice from the Forum and on the strength of the complainant this opposite party has initiated steps to process the same applications of the complainants under Dividend Yield Fund under Dividend Re-investment option with date of acceptance as on 31.7.2009 including all benefits. However, the complainants did not suffer any loss for the reason that the dividend was declared on 13.11.2009, 17.3.2010 and 27.7.2010 were also allotted. The opposite party have redressed the grievance of the complainant and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled to ?
4.There is no oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts.P1 to P7(series) marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- The matter was heard. As per the complainants, the complainants filed application for converting the investments outstanding in the name of the 2nd and 3rd complainants on 31.7.2009 under Unit Linked Insurance Plan to another scheme namely UTI Dividend Yield Fund. But the application was not processed by the opposite party as on 31.7.2009. Another application was filed by the 1st complainant for his daughter Sheena Sebastian with the application of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were processed by the opposite party and she received a benefit of Rs.1,03,147.94. But the 2nd and 3rd petitioners' investments were not converted to the Dividend Fund and so received only an amount of Rs.90,015.39. Copy of the acknowledgement receipt for the application given by the complainants dated 30.7.2009 is marked as Ext.P1(series). But nothing was done from the part of the opposite party and so the 1st petitioner issued a letter under certificate of posting to the opposite party. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the receipt for the same. So a statement of account issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P4 for his daughter Sheena Sebastian was received. But the application for the 2nd and 3rd complainants were not received and so a registered letter was issued to the opposite party dated 14.4.2010. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P5 and copy of the AD Card is marked as Ext.P6. Then the opposite party issued a statement of account of the three investors as per the application given by the 1st petitioner in the name of his 3 children and copy of them are marked as Ext.P7(series). In the account of Sheena Sebastian, the amount is written as Rs.1,03,147.94 and in the accounts of 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the amount arrived is Rs.90,015.39 only. The three applications were filed by the 1st complainant on the same day. But the applications of the 2nd and 3rd complainants were not considered. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that three investments were made by the 1st complainant in the opposite party's office and the applications from the complainant duly filled, for converting these investments to Dividend Yield Fund, on 31.7.2009 also received. The investments pertaining to Sheena Sebastian was converted into Dividend Yield Fund and opted Dividend Re-investment. The other two applications of the complainants were also considered and allotted units but due to technical reasons the allotted units were rejected and the matter was informed to the complainants. But on receipt of notice from this Forum on the strength of the complainant, the opposite party has initiated steps to process the applications of the complainant under Dividend Yield Fund under Dividend Re-investment option with date of acceptance as 31.7.2009 including all benefits. The complainants did not suffer any loss for the reason that the dividend was declared on 13.11.2009,17.3.2010 and 27.7.2010 were also allotted. So the opposite party has redressed the grievance of the complainants. So we think that after getting notice from this Forum, the opposite party has redressed the grievance of the complainant and if it is not done, that should be done within one month.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to consider the applications given by the 2nd and 3rd complainants under Unit Linked Insurance Plan to UTI Dividend Yield Fund as on 31.7.2009 onwards and pay all the benefits given in Ext.P7(a) to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1(series) - Copy of the acknowledgement receipt for the application given by the complainants dated 30.7.2009 (3 Nos.).
Ext.P2 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party dated 11.11.2009.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the receipt for certificate of posting dated 11.11.2009.
Ext.P4 - Copy of the statement of account issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P5 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party dated 14.4.2010.
Ext.P6 - Copy of the AD Card.
Ext.P7(series) - Copy of the statement of account issued by the opposite party for the three investors (3 Nos.).
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
