ORDER

05.12.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant is the widow of Late Sh. Pran Nath Chadha who had expired on 10.01.2001 in Delhi. It is stated that Late Sh. Pran Nath Chadha had invested a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each vide application no.7058317 and 7058381 dated 14.05.1992 in the Master Gain Scheme of UTI. It is further stated that complainant husband made payment of aforesaid amounts vide two cheques for Rs.10,000/- each bearing numbers 415822 dated 14.05.1992 (against application number 7058317 and cheque no.679257 dated 14.05.1992 (against application number 7058381). The folio numbers 50272492325 against application no. 7058381 and 50211740960 against application no.7058317 were allotted to complainant husband.
2. It is stated that on 13.08.2015, complainant submitted a request for settlement of the dues against Folio Number 50272492325 with OP2. It is further stated that the request of the complainant was processed by OP2 whereafter, the complainant had received an amount of Rs.82,096.60 on 02.09.2015. It is further stated that the complainant had also submitted a request for payment against folio number 50211740960 (application no.7058317) with OP2. It is stated that the complainant had visited the said office many times but the payment due has not been released to complainant. It is stated that instead OP1 has informed, the complainant that the payments cannot be released for want of record which is not traceable.
3. It is stated that the complainant had also approached SEBI who had promised to look into the matter but to no result. It is further stated that the complainant had also given a written request to OP3 which had also failed to give any positive/proper response. It is stated that complainant is a senior citizen (89 years of age) and is in dire need of the amount to which she is entitled too.
4. Complainant is seeking direction against OP to release the amount due under Folio number 50211740960 (against application no.7058317) alongwith interest thereon @ 24% p.a. till its realization, to pay Rs. One lakh as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, conveyance etc, to pay the litigation charges Rs.15,000/- and any other order which deems fit and proper.
5. OPs have filed detailed written statement. It is stated that the present reply/written version and submission is being filed by Karvy Computer share Private Limited (KPCL) i.e. OP3 on behalf of UTI Mutual fund (OP1 and 2 hereinafter) as it is authorized to do so. It is further stated that KPCL is a Category-1 Registrar and Transfer Agent licensed with Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and by virtue of which KPCL has been appointed as their Registrar and Transfer Agent for various schemes including UTI Equity Fund-Dividend Payout.
6. It is stated that the present complaint is factually wrong, false and based on concocted story and devoid of any merit and hence liable to be dismissed at the initial stage itself. It is further stated that the complainant’s husband had invested Rs.10,000/- in Mastergain 1992 (UTI-Equity Fund-Dividend Payout) vide folio no. N4093024, which was renumbered as folio no.50272492325. It is stated that on expiry of her husband the units were transmitted in the name of the complainant. It is stated that under the Folio No. 509291054714, 1000 units were accumulated and it was redeemed on 28.08.2015 by the complainant and an amount of Rs.82,096.68/- were transferred through NEFT at the savings bank account of complainant, Vimla Chadha, which she maintained in Punjab and Sind Bank.
7. It is stated that with regard to Folio No.50211740960 the OPs would like to edify this Hon’ble Forum that we have verified our records, however we are unable to find any live investment under the said Folio. It is further stated that it may be the case that the investment in dispute has either been redeemed or transferred or submitted for buy back. It is stated that the aforesaid information has already been provided to the complainant by the official of OP1 vide letter dated 13.10.2015 bearing reference no. UTIMF/10/MD-3576/1/2015-2016. It is further stated that the allegation of the complainant is wrong, false and denied. It is stated that any deficiency of service can be attributed in these facts and circumstances.
8. It is stated that the present complainant is time barred and liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation. It is further stated that in the case the units were not transmitted in the name of the complainant in the year 2001 and if assuming that there was privity of contract between complainant and OP then cause of action, if any, might have arisen in the year of 2003 itself whereas the complainant has filed the complaint in 2016. It is further stated that thankfully in this case there was no deficiency of service on the part of UTI or OPs nor any cause of action was subsisting in favour of the complainant it is therefore, stated that the complainant has, out of greed and wrong understanding of facts, filed the complaint in 2016 after considerable gap of time, only with malafide intention and to harass OPs. It is stated that delayed complaints must be dismissed at the admission stage itself. It is stated that the complainant has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme /court in case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S Agriculture Industries. It is further stated that in the present complaint no merit is there and not maintainable.
9. It is stated that as per Regulation 50 (2) of the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations 1996 every Asset Management Company shall maintain and preserve its books of account, records and documents for a period of 8 years. It is further stated that as per Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002, it was required by intermediaries to preserve the records of transactions upto ten years (10 Years0 but vide a circular no. CIR/MIRSD/1/2014 dated 12^th March, 2014 this record keeping requirements was reduced from ten years to five years and now the intermediaries are required to maintain and preserve the records for a period of  five years (5 years) only.
10. It is stated that the complainant has made an inflated claim without any reason or logic to harass the OPs, hence this tendency of the complainant is to be curbed u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is frivolous and vexatious complaint filed against the OPs without any cause of action. It is further stated that the death of investor caused in 2001 and the complainant requested for redemption cum transmission in 2015 and the OPs have processed and payment was also made to her. It is further stated that the units which were not redeemed by the husband of complainant was redeemed and , as stated above, amount of Rs.82,096.68/- was credited to the complainant and thereafter there was nothing live in the alleged folio and hence it could not be processed and cannot be processed in future also.  It is stated that when the investment got redeemed by the investigator himself the folio number will continue to reflect in the date with ZERO units and payment lies against ZERO units. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought by filing present complaint and hence it deserves to be dismissed at this stage itself.
11. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OPs and reiterated the contents.
12. Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
13. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint.
14. OPs filed evidence by way of evidence of Shanti Nath Jha, Manager and reiterated contents of WS.
15. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as by OPs.
16. We have heard Sh. D.K Sinha counsel for complainant and Sh. Dhavesh Chitkara counsel for OP1, 2 and 3.
17. The complainant alleged that deceased Prem Nath Chadha had invested Rs.10,000/- vide application no.7058317 dated 14.05.1992 in the Master Gain Scheme of UTI and made payment through cheque no.415822 dated 14.05.1992 and OP allotted folio no.50211740960. The deceased complainant husband also invested Rs.10,000/- vide application no.7058381 dated 14.05.1992 in the same scheme and paid Rs.10,000/- through cheque on 14.05.1992 and OP allotted folio no.50272492325. The complainant on 13.08.2015 submitted a request for settlement of dues against folio no.50272492325 with OP2 and same was processed and Rs.82,096/- received on 02.09.2015.
18. The complainant alleged that the request for payment against folio no.50211740960 against application no.7058317 was not processed. As per OP it is admitted that complainant husband has invested Rs.10,000/- in folio no.50272492325 and on expiry of husband late Sh. Prem Nath Chadha the units were transmitted in the name of deceased Vimla Chadha and under the folio no.509291054714, one thousand units were accumulated and redeem on 28.08.2015 and complainant received Rs.82,096.68.
19. As per OP the folio no.50211740960 as per verified record of OP unable to file any live investment. OP alleged that the investment in dispute has either been redeemed or transferred or submitted for buy back and deceased complainant was informed vide letter dated 13.10.2015. However complainant disputed these facts. The complainant filed on record the copy of application having number 7658317 and 7058381. The complainant also filed on record the receipt of receiving of Rs.87,239/- dated 05.08.2015 of folio no.50272492325. The complainant has proved the fact that deceased Pran Nath Chadha invested Rs.10,000/- vide application no.7058317, folio no.50211740690. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP has taken the defense of assumption and presumption stating that either being redeemed or transferred or submitted by buy back but no documentary proof filed on record in this regard. We are of considered opinion that as per documents filed on record complainant proved that deceased Pran Nath Chadha invested Rs.10,000/- vide cheque payment dated 14.05.1992 against folio 50211740960 and OP failed to reimburse the same after maturity when deceased complainant Vimla Chadha applied alongwith another folio no.50272492325.
20. On the basis of above observation and discussion the complainant has established deficiency on part of OP1 to 3. We direct the OP1 to redeem and pay Rs.82,096.68 as the value on 28.08.2015 of folio no.50211740960. We further directed OP1 to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the filing of present complaint till realization on the above said amount of Rs.82,096.68. We further direct OP1 to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
21. We direct OP1 to pay the above all said amounts to complainant LR namely Sh. Neeraj Kumar Chadha within 30 days from the receipt of the present order. In case of default OP1 is directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
22. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  05.12.2024.

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER