IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 272/06 DATED 06-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr.R.Jaganathan, Chief General Manager (Engines), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Belavadi P.O., Mysore-570 017.<br /> (INPERSON<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Branch Manager, Unit Trust of India Office, Beach Road, Chennai.<br /> 2. M/s UTI Investor Services Ltd., Post Bag No.37452, Plot No.369, Marol Moroshi Road, (Near Marol Moroshi Bus Depot), Vijayanagar, Andheri Easte, Mumbai-400 059.<br /> 3. M/s Unit Trust of India, Southern Zonal Office, UTI House, 29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.<br /> 4. M/s MN Dastur & Co.Ltd., Registrars : UTI Master Shares 86 Matulya Centre ‘A’, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 013.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09-10-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : EXPARTE<br /> Date of order : 06-12-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant Dr.R.Jaganathan as a Power of Attorney Holder of his mother Ponnammal against the opponents M/s UTI Investor Services Ltd., under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that his father Late Ramalilngam during his life time had invested some amount in the opponent concern. That his father died on 26-11-1988, thereafter his mother forwarded all the required documents to the opponent for settling the death claim to her and inspite of several repeated reminders, the opponent did not change by changing his father’s name to that of his mother, also failed to change the name in the dividend warrants issued in the name of his father to release the re-validated bonus and warrant cheques in favour of his mother and also failed to issue fresh dividend warrants in the name of his mother. All the representations they made have went in vain and submitted that his father had four investments in the opponent and alleged that there is deficiency in the service of the opponent and therefore prayed for directing the opponents to refund of Rs.4,000/- invested by his father including dividend bonus etc., payable to them and also award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. <br /> <br /> 2. The complainant had in all made four opponents in the complaint. Later on, the complainant filed an application for deleting opponent nos. 2 and 4 and to proceed only against the opponent nos. 1 and 3 stating that opponents no. 2 and 4 are not necessary parties. Notices of this complaint have been served on opponent nos. 1 and 3, but they have remained absent, as such are placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. The Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant Smt. Ponnammal in proof of their allegations has filed affidavit by reiterating the contents of the complaint, referred to certain correspondences made by himself and his mother with the opponents and stated that despite all the requests made to the opponents, they have failed to change the certificates from the name of his father to the name of his mother who is a nominee, also to change the dividend warrants, which were issued in the name of his father to the name of his mother and thereby contended that they have been put to loss and mental agony and therefore has prayed for the relief as prayed for. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has produced only three Unit Trust of India Multi Fund Division Certificates each having 100 shares, which stand in the name of Late Ramalingam, his wife R.Ponnammal and his son are shown as the nominees. The complainant also produced copies of the letters addressed to the Opponent Trust reporting the death of his father Ramalingam and request to change the name of Ramalingam and substitute the name of his mother and also to issue warrants of dividend in the name of his mother. The complainant has also produced two replies sent by the opponents as replies to the letters of the complainant who have in their replies admitted the return of articles sent by them in the name of Ramalingam and also report made by the complainant regarding the death of Ramalingam. It is further seen that the opponents have tossed on the responsibility of attending the requests of the Complainant from one to another and further and despite noting Ramalingam no action seems to have been take to settle the claim. All the letters addressed by the complainant and his mother have not yield any result. Therefore, on perusal of the correspondences that have taken place between the two and the inaction of the opponents exhibit the deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. It is shocking to know though the complainant reported the death of Ramalingam who died on 26.11.88, even till date nothing has come out from the opponents to set right the grievances of the complainant. Therefore, on considering entire materials placed before this Forum and also considering the deliberate absence of the opponents before this Forum, despite service of notices make it manifest, that the opponents have become thick skinned and turned deafer to the grievances of it’s customer. It is on evaluation of all these materials, we have no hesitation to hold that there is total deficiency in the service of the opponents. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant in the complaint and the affidavit filed has referred to four certificates each with a face value of 100 shares amounting to Rs.4,000/- in all. But, the complainant has only produced the copies of three certificates and has not produced another certificate. It was brought to the notice of the Complainant, for which he submitted for passing order in respect of three certificates only. It is, under these circumstances, we hold that the complainant is entitled to certain relief. It is noticed from the records right from the date of death of R.Ramalingam on 26.11.88 correspondences are being made by his wife and his son and his Smt.Ponnammal who is in her advanced age almost found cringing for her legitimate claim, which has been almost sidelined by the opponents putting her to unnecessary stress and mental agony for which she is entitled for separate compensation. With this, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part and the opponent nos. 1 and 3 are hereby are held as jointly and severally liable to pay the value of the certificates and directed to pay the face value of the shares held by Late Ramalingam with all other dividends and other benefits accrued on them to his wife Smt.R.Ponnammal who is also the first nominee, within three months from the date of this order, failing which the opponent nos. 1 and 3 are also directed to pay interest on the total accrued amount at 12% p.a. after the expiry of the three months time granted. <br /> 2. The opponent nos. 1 and 3 shall also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and also cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6th December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />