Date of Filing : 01.08.2011
Date of Order : 16.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 16th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 169 / 2011
1. Sri. Mohamed Ghouse Peer,
S/o. Abdul Raheem,
Aged about 22 years,
2. Sri. Abdul Raheem, S/o. Mohamed Hazi,
Aged about 72 years, Rtd. KEB Driver,
Both are R/at: Tarsha Mohalla,
Near Alankar Touring Talkies,
Chikkabalapur Road,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. B.N. Vasudeva Murthy, Adv.) ……. Complainants
V/s.
1. UTI Mutual Funds,
Ground Floor, B-14 & 15,
Devatha Plaza, 132, Residency Road,
Opp. Bishop Cotton Boys High School,
Bangalore – 560 025.
2. M/s. Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd.,
(UTI Mutual Fund), Narayani Mission,
H.No. 1-90-2110/E, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur,
Hyderabad – 500 081 (AP).
3. Smt. J. Kalpana (APN),
W/o. R. Aswathanarayana Swamy Guptha,
Broker/Dealer, UTI Mutual Fund,
Kolar Collection Centre, No. 590, Doddapet,
Kolar – 563 101.
4. Sri. R. Aswathanarayana,
Chief Representative-UTI, No. 590, Doddapet,
Kolar – 563 101.
5. The Senior Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kolar Branch, Kuvempu Nagar,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. Sama Rangappa, Adv. for OP5) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the Ops 1 to 4 to pay the value of UTI monthly income scheme of OP1 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and to direct the OP5 to verify and report receipt of the amount in their Branch are necessary:
Complainant No. 2 for the welfare of his son of Complainant No. 1, has invested in the UTI monthly income scheme growth plan of OP1 in Account No. 2319474691 and Folio Nos. 51714928073, 5171492928067 & 5171492669 having allotted units of 735-369 and paid premium for 7 years. After maturity Complainant contacted the Ops 1 & 2 through Ops 3 & 4 for payment and also furnished all the details to them. OPs stated that the amount has been paid to the Complainant. Statement of accounts was also produced to the Ops 1 & 2 through Ops 3 & 4 to show that no amount has been received by the Complainant No. 1. Ops 1 to 4 have collected an indemnity Bond on Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- from the Complainant agreeing to pay the amount to the Complainant. But, till today nothing has been paid to the Complainant. On going through the records, it is found that OP2 has sent the amount for payment to the Complainant No. 1 to the State Bank of India, Kolar Branch. Complainant had no account at S.B.I., Kolar, but he has account with State Bank of Mysore, Kolar Branch. This was brought to the notice of Ops 1 to 4. Even then, Ops have not sent the amount to the Complaint. Hence the Complaint.
2(a). In this case OP3 though served remained absent throughout the proceedings.
2(b). In brief the version of the Ops 1 & 2 are:-
UTI-AMC had earlier appointed UTI Technology Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai as the Registrar and Transfer Agent for the Scheme UTI-MIS and later UTI-AM. The amount has been paid to the Complainant No. 1 after maturity and these Ops have nothing to do with this though they are successor in office.
2(c). In brief the version of Ops 4 & 5 are:-
OP has received Cheques vide Cheque Folio Nos. 51714928073, 51714928067 & 51714928069 drawn in the name of Complainant No. 1 and it was credited to the account of one N.S. Ghouse, S/o. Jafer Sab, as it has been received from the 1st OP. The Bank credited the amount to a wrong account, later Bank written letter to the said N.S. Ghouse on 01.12.2001 to return the amount of Rs.39,075.45. Hence, complaint be dismissed.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant No. 1 had invested certain amounts in the UTI monthly income scheme of Ops 1 & 2 through Ops 3 & 4. Complainant No. 2 on behalf of Complainant No. 1 had paid premium for 7 years. It is also an admitted fact that the said UTI scheme has been matured. Ops 1 & 2 are successor of the said UTI.
7. The entire case of the Complainant is that after the maturity of the UTI scheme, he has not been received any money. He has account only at S.B.M., Kolar and not at S.B.I., Kolar. It is also an admitted fact that the Ops 1 & 2 through Ops 3 & 4 have sent the amount of Rs.39,075.45 to S.B.I., Kolar to another person by name N.S. Ghouse and that amount has been drawn by the said N.S. Ghouse. Complainant No. 1 is having account with S.B.M., Kolar and not at S.B.I., Kolar. When the amount has been wrongly sent to wrong account of wrong person and not to the right account of right person, it is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Even after knowing the details Ops 1 to 4 should have taken steps to recover the money from OP5 and N.S. Ghouse to whose account they have wrongly sent the amount of the Complainant, but they have not taken any steps. Even otherwise, it is for the Ops 1 to 4 to take action either against OP5 or against N.S. Ghouse for recovery of the amount which they have wrongly sent. For that, this order will not come in the way.
8. In this case, there is no jural relationship of consumer & trader between OP5 on one side and Complainant on the other side. When the Complainant has not availed any services or purchased any goods from OP5 or OP5 has sold any service or goods to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service between the Complainant on one side and OP5 on the other side. As such, we cannot pass any order against OP5 except saying that OP5 may recover the money from N.S. Ghouse and pay it to Ops 1 to 4. It is for it and OPs 1 to 4 concerned. In any event, Complainant is entitled to the amount which is already quantified, that has not been paid to the Complainant. Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops 1 to 4 are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.39,075.45 together with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. from 12.05.2007 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. Ops 1 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the Complainants.
4. OP5 may recover the amount of Rs.39,075.45 and pay it to OP Nos. 1 to 4.
5. Ops 1 to 4 are directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
6. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
7. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
