PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Mr. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. has filed this complaint against the Unit Trust of India ( opposite party no.1) , Datamatics Financial Services Ltd (opposite party no.2), M/s R.S.Jhaveri & Co. ( opposite party no.3) and Karvy Consultants Ltd (opposite party no.4) seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and certain other directions alleging deficiency in service on their part in not transferring 4,00,000 units to the complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days or much thereafter and causing inexcusable delay in transferring most of the units and for not transferring some of the units. 2. In nutshell, the case of complainant is that on 20.06.1994, it had purchased 4,00,000 units of respondent no.1 i.e. Mastergain 1992 scheme at a net price of Rs.11.98 per unit at a total price of Rs.47,92,000/- from ICICI Securities and Finance Companies Ltd through M/s R S Jhaveri & Co. (opposite party no.3), share and stock broking firm. Vide a letter dated 01.09.1994, the complainant sought transfer of the said units through Datamatics Financial Services (opposite party no.2). No action was taken by opposite party no.2 for about eight months and, thereafter, they were reminded to do the needful and forward the transferred units to the complainant. According to the complainant, out of 4,00,000 units sent to the opposite party no.1, only 3,97,500 units were received back on different dates between 28.06.95 to 21.08.96, out of which the transfer was effected only in respect of 3,71,200 units and 26100 units were returned back alleging bad delivery as per the following details: Statement showing the sequence of date on which Master Gain 1992 Units were received and Balance Units Date28-6-954-8-9524-8-9524-11-951-3-9630-3-984-4-9622-5-965-7-9612-7-9612-8-9613-8-9621-8-96Total Units Received4,900135,00029,70057,900124,100-21,2002,0005,3007007,6008,9002003,97,500 Transferred to Complainants Name-127,0001980055,300124,10021,2002,0005,300-7,6008,900-3,71,200 Bad Delivery Units4,9007,8009,9002,600-----700--20026,100 Units Sent bank to Datamatics-200---13,700-------13,900 Total Units lodged 4,00,000 Less: Units received 3,97,500 ------------- 2,500 Add: Units sent back after Rectification 13,900 Balance receivable Units ----------- 16,400 -------------- Statement Showing Master Gain 1992 Units Sent to Respondent No.3 and Balance Units to be received Date Of which Bad Deliver Units Received Back Sent to Respondent No.3 From Respondent No.3 28-6-95 4,900 - 4-8-95 7,800 - 24-8-95 9,900 - 24-11-95 2,600 - 12-3-96 - 13,700 12-7-96 700 - 21-8-96 _200 ----- Total 26,100 13,700 Bad deliver sent to Respon dent No.3 26,100 Units Units received back from Respondent No.3 13,700 Balance receivable Units 12,400 3. Lot of correspondences has exchanged between the parties and since the units were not transferred within the stipulated period and some units still remained to be transferred, the complainant filed the complaint seeking following reliefs: a. To direct respondent no.1 & 2 to forthwith transfer the balance of the complainant units. b. To direct the respondent no.3 to forthwith remove objections in respect of the balance 12400 units forwarded to them by the complainant and return the same directly to respondent no.2 with directions to respondent no.2 to forthwith transfer the same to the name of the complainant. c. To direct respondent no. 3 to pay to the complainant stamp charges in respect of the units which are rectified by respondent no.3. d. Respondent no. 1 & 2 should jointly and severally compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs being the loss incurred by the complainant in (i) not being able to redeem their units as per the respondent no.1 scheme or switch over to any of respondent no.1 other schemes; ii. not being able to sell their entire stock of units at favourable price and invest their money in better shares and securities which are substantially appreciated after that point of time; iii. not being able to rectify the bad delivery units iv. Rate of interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint. v. For costs of this complaint. vi. For such further and other reliefs. 4. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party no.1 & 2 and written version of defence has been filed. The other opposite parties R.S.Jhaveri and Co., Share and Stock Brokers and Karvy Consultants Ltd. remained unrepresented on record and were proceeded ex parte. In the written version filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 &2, preliminary objections have been raised about the complaint having been filed without any cause of action; the complaint does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there is no direct privity of contract between the complainant and the answering opposite parties; complainant is not a consumer and is not covered by the definition appearing in section 2 (1) (d) of the term; compensation claimed by the complainant is highly exaggerated and that if at all, the actual claim of the complainant concerns only 16,400 units each of the value of Rs.10/- each; the complainant has not furnished the details of the units purchased by it and submitted for transfer alongwith the complaint and, therefore, the four lakh units submitted for transfer were not identifiable or verifiable. On merits it is not disputed that a request for transfer of four lakh units was received but it is sought to be explained that said request was not in order being incomplete in several aspects as the requested documents like Memorandum of Association and the Resolution of the Company etc., and the details of the four lakh units, transfer of which the complaint had sought, were not furnished. It is stated that once the formalities were completed, the opposite party had verified the requisite facts and transfer was effected except the transfer of those units which were found as bad delivery due to difference in signatures appearing on those units etc. It is also stated that since the units belonged to various divisions in far flung areas of the country, verification was made from there which was a time consuming process and, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties in taking the requisite action for the transfer of the units. In the rejoinder, complainant has controverted the various objections and has reiterated the averments and allegations made in the complaint. 5. In support of its claim, the complainant led evidence by means of affidavit of Shri Pheroze Mistry and on behalf of opposite party, affidavit of Shri A.H.Mittal has been filed. The parties have largely relied upon the documents in particular the correspondence exchanged between the parties during the relevant period. We have carefully perused the same and have heard Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Parveen Mehdiratta, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have considered their respective submissions. 6. Having regard to the respective pleas put forth on behalf of the parties and the material brought on record in the shape of documents, there cannot be denial of the factual position that four lakh units of UTI Mastergain 1992 Scheme were purchased by the complainant-company from ICICI Securities and Finance Companies Ltd. through R.S,Jhaveri & Co. sometimes in June 1994. Afterwards, vide communicated dated 01.09.1994, the complainant lodged a request with Datamatics Financial Services, Registrar of the opposite party no.1, for the transfer of the said shares which were duly acknowledged by the said Registrar on 02.09.1994. Afterwards, there was a silence on the part of opposite party No.1, Unit Trust of India, and it was only by a communication dated 06.12.94 that the UTI asked the complainant to furnish certain further details and documents like Articles of Association and the Resolution etc, which the complainant promptly furnished once again vide communication dated 16.12.94. According to the complainant, even thereafter no action was taken by the opposite party to transfer the units. From the statement filed by the complainant, it is manifest that transferring the units in piece meal started w.e.f. from 26.06.95 onwards. However, from another statement on record it is evident that first lot of 1,27,000 units were transferred in the name of the complainant sometimes in March 1995 itself. It appears that subsequently more units were transferred i.e.19800 units were transferred on 24.08.1995 and 55900 were transferred on 24.11.95. Another lot of 1,24,100 were transferred on 01.03.1996 followed by subsequent transfers in the same year. Learned counsel for opposite party also brought it to our notice that after filing of the complaint, even the remaining units were also transferred in the name of the complainant and infact complainant had sold all the four lakh units to the opposite party no.1 sometimes in march 2001. It is also apparent that about 20000 units could not be transferred due to difference in signatures. 7. Above noted circumstances will make it clear that there was no prompt transfer of the units in the name of the complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days and, therefore, we can at once hold that there was initial delay of about three months in the transfer of some units and more than 15 months in the transfer of other lot of units. What was the reason for such a delay is sought to be explained by the counsel for the opposite party is that the complainant himself was to be blamed for not furnishing the requested information and documents required for effecting the transfer of the units. That apart the several thousand units lodged for transfer could not have been transferred, they being the case of bad delivery. Even if we consider this explanation to be a plausible one, we find that there is unexplained and avoidable delay on the part of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 in not effecting the transfer of the remaining units of more than 3,80,000 within the reasonable period even giving a little margin to the fact that number of units was quite large and they pertains to different offices of opposite party no.1. In our view, this delay amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1 & 2 for which they should compensate the complainant. 8. Now coming to amount of compensation, complainant has made claim of compensation going by the value of the units as in October 1996, which according to the complainant was around Rs.15/- unit and in the alternative going by the rate of interest between 20 to 23% p.a. given on the term deposit by certain leading companies during the relevant period. In our view the complainant is not entitled to seek compensation on either of those basis because the date of October 1996 has no relevance as most of the units had been transferred to the complainant between March 1995 to March 1996. The rate of interest offered by certain companies on term deposits has the least relevance while computing the compensation. The compensation which the complainant can claim is for the actual pecuniary loss suffered by it. The complainant has not been able to establish the exact amount of loss suffered by it due to delay in the transfer of units in its favour. However, going by the extent of delay of about three months in transferring the first lot of units and thereafter about 15 months in the transfer of the remaining lots and going by the total value of the units being around Rs.49,00,000, we are of the view that it will adequately meet the ends of justice if a lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the complainant. 9. In the result, the complaint in partly allowed and the opposite party no.1 & 2 are hereby jointly and severally called upon to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The amount shall be paid within a period of four weeks failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. The complaint stands dismissed against the other opposite parties.