Complaint filed on: 15-06-2012
Disposed on: 08-11-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1211/2012
DATED THIS THE 8th NOVEMBER 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Subhoday Mukherjee,
# 05, Third Main, Narayana Reddy
Layout, Horamavu Main Road,
Horamavu, Near Panchmukhi
Ganesha Temple, Banasawadi,
Bangalore-560 043,
Karnataka, India
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Manager,
Reliance Capital Asset Management
Limited, N-111-112-114, 1st Floor,
North Block, Manipal Centre,
Dickenson Road, Bangalore -42
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to reimburse of Rs.2,400=00 to him with 18% interest.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant tried doing a redemption of Rs.1,200=00 in each of two folio numbers 404117895917 (Reliance Natural Resources Fund) and 404117895404 (Reliance Equity Fund) on 28-10-2010 using the reliance Mutual Fund and HDFC Bank Co-branded ATM card issued to complainant by Reliance Mutual Fund on each of these folios a card separately, but the complainant did not receive any cash from the ATM, instead the error message was coming as “Sorry Unable to Process”. Then, the complainant did an online redemption on each of the two folios on the same day for rupees twelve hundred change but he did not receive the cheques for the same. He called up the customer care of reliance mutual fund and sent mails to the customer grievance mail ID of reliance mutual fund and approached the branch office of Karvy and gave a written complaint and also reliance mutual fund and HDFC bank in Bangalore, but no use, then he sent a mail through rights based approach society of Consumer Redressal forum and asked them to sort out his issue at the earliest in reply of which they sent copies of two ATM withdrawal receipts of Rs.1,200=00 dated 28-10-2010 on which there was no transaction at all. Hence the present complaint is filed praying to reimburse of Rs.2,400=00 to the complainant with 18% interest.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:
The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd and H-block, 1st floor, Dhirubhai Ambani knowledge city, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai and its corporate office at one Indiabulls centre, Mumbai. Reliance Mutual Fund was established in 1995 under the Indian Trusts Act, to make investments in diversified securities. Reliance Mutual Fund has been registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India and all mutual fund schemes are lunched pursuant to SEBI Regulations and the circulars issued by SEBI from time to time. The complainant had made the redemption of his mutual funds using the card and the said disputed amount of Rs.2,400=00 which the complainant alleges has not to have received were withdrawn through a Visa Automated Teller Machine of HDFC Bank Ltd, this can be clearly inferred from the perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record before this forum. The complainant has neither produced any affidavit in support of his contentions nor has produced any evidence in favour of his purported claims. It is the complainant who has to prove his claims; the said principal has not been complied by the complainant. The purported redemption as claimed by the complainant had taken place at an ATM of HDFC Bank Ltd. So the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has claimed that he made redemption online on 28-10-2010. However, no proof has been provided in support of his claim, this shows the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. The said redemption was carried out appropriately and was completed without any error at the end of the OP. The OP had approached HDFC Bank Ltd and has been since provided by a copy of the transaction slips and was produced by the subject ATM machine at which the purported redemption transactions had taken place. No online redemptions were received from the complainant on 28-10-2012 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The OP performed all its duties diligently with respect to the redemption request of the complainant and informed the complainant on various occasions to provide any evidence of the failed transactions as alleged by the complainant, but the complainant never furnish any proof, the complainant rather chose to harass the OP through various modes including the present complaint. Whatever the complainant’s allegations made in the complaint is false, frivolous and untenable in law. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the
Point no.1, the complainant is not entitled
to any relief as prayed in the complaint
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
7. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced six copies of documents. On the other hand, one P.Raghavendra, who being the employee of OP has filed his affidavit on behalf of OP and produced five documents. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties meticulously.
8. One Subhoday Mukherjee, who being the complainant has deposed in his affidavit filed by way of evidence that, he tried doing a redemption of Rs.1,200=00 in each of two folio numbers 404117895917 (Reliance Natural Resources Fund) and 404117895404 (Reliance Equity Fund) on 28-10-2010 using the reliance Mutual Fund and HDFC Bank Co-branded ATM card issued to him by Reliance Mutual Fund on each of these folios a card separately, but he did not receive any cash from the ATM, instead the error message was coming as “Sorry Unable to Process”. Then, he did an online redemption on each of the two folios on the same day i.e. on 28-10-2010 for rupees twelve hundred change but he did not receive the cheques for the same. He called up the customer care of reliance mutual fund and sent mails to the customer grievance and approached the branch office of Karvy and gave a written complaint and also reliance mutual fund and HDFC bank in Bangalore, but no use, then he sent a mail through rights based approach society of Consumer Redressal forum and asked them to sort out his issue at the earliest and in reply of which they sent copies of two ATM withdrawal receipts of Rs.1,200=00 dated 28-10-2010 on which there is no transaction at all, he wants the entire amount of Rs.2,400=00 be reimbursed bank with 18% interest.
9. On careful reading of the averments of complaint and evidence of complainant as mentioned above, it is unambiguously clear that, the complainant has tendered his evidence in conformity with the averments of complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant to know whether the oral evidence of the complainant is supported by documentary evidence or not. Document no.1 of the complainant is gmail copy of complainant sent to the OP dated 25-1-2012 stating that, he tried to withdraw the cash from two of the folios using the ATM card but the error message came as Sorry unable to process. But unfortunately the cash has been debited from the respective account and for this he gave so many complaints in the customer grievance centre, but no effect has taken place and they have replied that the cash was already withdrawn and called upon the OP to redress the grievances with in a period of 7 days otherwise he will file a complaint in the consumer forum. Document no.2 is the copy of email letter issued by OP dated 31-1-2012 addressed to Mr.Srivastav stating that, they received email dated 26-1-2012 of complainant and after reviewing the complaint they will respond at the earliest. Document no.3 is the copy of email of OP addressed to Srivastav denying the complaint of the complainant in toto and whatever stated by the complainant is absolutely false and HDFC bank has confirmed to them that there was no error/discrepancy in processing the transactions of complainant and cash was dispensed for the said transactions from the ATM machine and transactions were processed successfully and the cash was dispensed from the ATM machine, and accordingly redeemed adequate units from the folios of complainant and transaction slips provided to them by HDFC bank are produced if still to take any legal action against them the same would be defended by them at his costs. Next document is the copy of withdrawal slip which shows that the amount of Rs.1,200-00 each was withdrawn on 28-10-2010 under two folios separately and there was an endorsement that transaction was done and the amount withdrawn. Last document of the complainant is the copy of complaint given by the complainant to the OP dated 25-5-2011, but as per the complaint, the complainant tried redemption of 1,200=00 each, but the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP on 25-5-2011. On seeing the last document of the complainant being written complaint submitted by the complainant, it is made manifest that, the copy of the complaint dated 25-5-2011 is incomplete document as there is no further writing on the back page of the said document. We do not understand, why the complainant has produced an incomplete copy of written complaint to the OP. Besides, both in the complaint and during the course of evidence, the complainant has reiterated that, at the time of withdrawing the amount from the ATM machine, he received an error message as Sorry unable to process. But, unfortunately, the complainant has failed to produce the slip of ATM to show that, he received an error message as Sorry unable to process. In the absence of producing any documentary evidence, it is perilous to hold on solitary testimony of the complainant that, he received an error message as Sorry unable to process, and he did not receive the amount when he tried with ATM machine on 28-10-2010. The oral evidence of the complainant that, on 28-10-2010 he did not receive any cash from ATM machine, instead of it, he received an error message as Sorry unable to process, and when he did online redemption, he did not receive cheques etc. is not corroborated by any clear and tangible documentary evidence.
10. On the other hand, one P.Raghavendra who being the employee of OP has stated in his affidavit that, whatever stated by the complainant in the complaint is not correct and the purported redemption as claimed by the complainant had taken place on ATM of HDFC bank Ltd and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had used the ATM withdrawal facility of the card on 28-10-2010 to redeem a sum of Rs.1,200=00 of his investment, the said redemption transaction was carried out and was completed without any error. The Act of the complainant in filing the complaint demonstrates the malafide intentions of the complainant, so the claim of the complainant is frivolous, vexatious and is devoid of any material facts, so the complaint be dismissed.
11. The OP has produced two account statement of the complainant, wherein it is stated that, on 28-10-2010 the amount of Rs.1,200=00 each was withdrawn through ATM card of the complainant. Document no.3 is the copy of authority letter given by the OP in the name of Raghavendra who filed affidavit on behalf of the OP. Last document of OP is the copy of statement of withdrawal of amount Rs.1,200=00 each under two different folios on 28-10-2010. The said evidence of employee of OP that, the complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,200=00 through ATM under two different folios numbers and whatever the complainant contention that, he did not withdraw the amount is false stands corroborated by account statement and copy of withdrawal slip produced on behalf of the OP. Taking the evidence of complainant and compare the same with the oral and documentary evidence of OP, it is made explicitly clear that, the material evidence of OP is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the oral and documentary evidence of complainant, and as such, we hold that, the OP has acted as per rules and regulations of their company and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on behalf of the OP. So viewing the case of the complainant, on the back ground of documentary evidence produced on behalf of complainant, and oral and documentary evidence of OP, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove this point satisfactorily by placing convincing material evidence, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.
12. In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, we declined to grant any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. So, under the circumstance, both parties shall bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 8th day of November 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
