Per Shri D.N.Khamatkar, Hon'ble Member:

        This appeal takes exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai dated 09/12/2009 in consumer complaint no. 31/2009.  The facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under:

        The appellants/org.complainants had a demat account in the opponent bank.  The appellants/org.complainants were having 3440 shares of the Ranbaxy Laboratories in the demat account opened by the appellants/complainants.  Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vide its letter dated 16/08/2008 expressed their intention to repurchase their shares and offer was valid up to 04/09/2008.  Accordingly, the appellants/org.complainants had deposited the shares vide four different delivery instructions slips (DIS) on 04/09/2008 at about 1.30 p.m.  Accordingly, the opponent has given acknowledgment.  The opponent has processed three delivery instructions slips however, could not process one delivery instruction slip.  On 05/09/2008 the opponent told to the servant of the appellants/complainants that on 05/09/2008, they will process the same.  However, the Ranbaxy company has refused the offer.  The appellants/ complainants have informed the deficiency of service by the opponent no.1 to opponent no.2.  Hence, the appellants/complainants have filed a consumer complaint claiming the compensation of Rs.7,70,434/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, Rs.25,000/- for cost and Rs.45,000/- for other expenses.

        The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint partially and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- vide its order dated 09/12/2009.  It is against the order dated 09/12/2009 the present appeal is preferred. 

        Admittedly, the appellants/org.complainants had a demat account with the opponent. The appellants/complainants have delivered four delivery instructions slips to the respondent/opponent.  The respondent/opponent has acknowledged the receipt of delivery instructions slips.  However, the opponent has processed three delivery slips and could not process one delivery instruction slip.  It is the contention of the appellants that this amounts to deficiency in service by the respondents/opponents. 

Ld.Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that opponent has failed in discharge of their duty and hence, it amounts to deficiency in service.  He further contended that the opponent has processed three delivery instructions slips, however has not processed one delivery slip having  maximum shares and this has caused a loss of Rs.7,70,434/- to the appellants.  Therefore, he submitted that appeal may please be allowed and order of the lower court may please be set aside.

        We have gone through the case papers and evidence placed on record and the order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.   It is the contention of the opponent that they have accepted the delivery instructions slips and they have put a stamp on the same “ best effort basis at clients risk” and hence, they are not responsible for the deficiency in service.  They further contented that the appellants/complainants had approached them on 04/09/2008 at 1.45 p.m. and with a view to give service to the appellants/complainants, they have accepted their delivery instructions slips with an endorsement, “best effort basis and risk of the complainant” and hence, they cannot be held responsible.  There is circular of the bank that such types of slips are to be presented at least 24 hrs. earlier of closing of the offer.  Opponent has pointed out the circular of NSDL dated 21/10/2004 which clarifies, “SEBI has clarified that participants can decide their own time frame for submission of such instructions by their clients (i.e. one or two days before the execution date).  However, the participants should execute the instructions not later on one day from the date of submission of instructions by the client further if the date of submission and execution date are same, Participants may execute such instructions on same date on best effort offer basis”. 

        In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opponent.  The appeal filed is devoid of any merits and hence, we pass the following order:-

                                        :-ORDER-:     

1.           Appeal stands dismissed.

2.           Order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai dated 09/12/2009 is hereby confirmed.

3.           No order as to costs.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.