CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE



CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.186/2008 Date of Filing: - 24/12/2008

Date of Order: - 23/07/2009

Mr.Ganesh Manohar Pai,

201 Mandavi Court, Court Road,

Udupi – 576 101,

Karnataka State. … Complainant.



-Versus –



1) LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management

Co.Ltd.Industrial Assurance Bldg.,

4th Floor, Opp.Churchgate Station,

Mumbai – 400 020.



2) Mr.Sushoban Sarrker,

Chief Executive,

LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management

Co.Ltd.Industrial Assurance Bldg.,

4th Floor, Opp.Churchgate Station,

Mumbai – 400 020.



3) Mr.Ravi Chaudhary,

General Manager,

LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management

Co.Ltd.Industrial Assurance Bldg.,

4th Floor, Opp.Churchgate Station,

Mumbai – 400 020.



4) Mr.P.Ponpandian,

Company Secretary,

LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management

Co.Ltd.Industrial Assurance Bldg.,

4th Floor, Opp.Churchgate Station,

Mumbai – 400 020.



5) Mr.G.Ramkrishna

Area Manager,

LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management

Co.Ltd. 4, Canara Building,

Opp.Cash Pharmacy, 2nd Floor,

Residency Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

6) Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd.,

Karvy register House, H.No.8-2-596,

Avenue 4, Street No.1, Bangara Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 032. Andhrapradesh … Opponent No.1 to 6.



Corum :- Shri.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member,

Mrs.S.P.Lale,Hon'ble Member.



Present :- M.P.Wamorkar, Advocate for Complainant

Mr.T.J.Pandian, Adv.for Opponent No.1 to 5.

Mr.Komal Singh, Adv. for Opponent No.6



O R A L O R D E R



Per Shri.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member



1) Advocate Mr.M.P.Wamorkar present for Complainant. Opponents waves the notice, Opponent No.1 to 5 present through Advocate Mr.T.J.Pandian who filed Vakalatnama and affidavit in reply. Mr.Komal Singh, Adv. for Opponent No.6-Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd., is also present. Heard both parties .

2) Complaint Ganesh M.Pai and his brother late Dinesh Pai are both enjoys the status of NRI. In the investments made by Dinesh pai, Complainant Ganesh was shown as nominee. It is the case of the complainant that he made investments of Rs.54,21,198.12 ps. in the LIC Mutual Fund from his own income and that is separate property. After death of Dinesh Pai proceedings for obtaining succession certificate were initiated in Civil Court at Kurla. In desperation perhaps, legal heirs of Dienesh Pai tried to block the amount under the investment in question. There is exchange of correspondence on email and as a result thereof, Opposite Party No.1-LIC Mutual Fund, apparently, become defensive, and make query from legal heir of Dinesh Pai to furnish details/order of Kurla Court, if any, to block the investment as desired by them. Thereafter, admittedly, Kurla Court proceeding were taken to the City Civil Court, Mumbai wherein Opposite Party No.1 is also made a party. It is also stated that, opposite party also urged in the proceedings before City Civil Court to make the complainant as a party.

3) Coming to the consumer complaint before us we firstly find that in the given circumstances and ground mentioned earlier at this stage no deficiency in service against Opposite Party No.1 to 5. Complainant himself consider that there is no case against Opponent No.6. Further since the matter is subjudice before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, to involve additional remedy by way of consumer complaint would not be proper. The complicated nature of issues involved could be properly settled by the City Civil Court and such issues, certainly, are not to be settled in a summery proceedings before the Consumer Fora.

For the reasons mentioned, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :



O R D E R



1) Complaint stands rejected.

2) No order as costs.

3) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





( Mrs.S.P.Lale ) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



A.J.