Janinder Kumar son of Sh. Isher Dass r/o H.No. 2861, Street No.9, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.


Versus

1- The Branch Manager, Union Trust of India, SCF-28, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana (through its Branch Manager).

2- M/s Datamatics Limited, Unit Master Plus, State Bank Building, Bombay (through its Director).

3- M/s Karvy Compershare Pvt. Ltd., H.No.8-2-596, Avenue-4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

1- In this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case briefly spelled by complainant is that he purchased shares from S. Surjit Singh vide Folio No.8063895 and share certificate 5647406, having 100 shares, on 8.12.1993. Transfer deed was duly executed by Surjit Singh in favour of the complainant. Transfer deed alongwith share certificate have been sent to OP on 13.12.1993 through regd. AD to OP no.2, but till today, these shares are not transferred in favour of the complainant, even despite issuing reminder through regd. AD post. Complainant received acknowledgement on 2.9.1994 regarding the reminder. One letter dated 27.4.194 was received by complainant from opposite party no.2, assuring to send the shares duly transferred in his favour upto 30.5.1995. But they failed to do so. Complainant again sent a reminder on 9.5.1996, requesting opposite party to transfer the shares in his name. Opposite party vide letter dated 14.6.1996 again demanded transfer deed.

They conveyed to complainant that signatures of the seller are not essential on fresh transfer deed which is to be executed by complainant only. So, complainant sent the transferred deed to them, but thereafter also, they failed to transfer the shares in name of the complainant, even despite letter dated 3.3.2006 written by Relationship Manager Deepak Mathur. As such, opposite party delayed transfer of shares in favour of complainant on one pretext or the other since 14 years. Now, opposite party have started alleging that Surjit Singh has died in the year 2006a and his wife has denied sale of the shares. In fact, wife of Surjit Singh has nothing to do with the shares and she never claimed the same since 8.12.1993, nor she is owner of the shares. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 29.6.2007, but without result. Value of the share is alleged more than Rs.10,000/-. Hence, claiming such act of opposite party amounting to deficiency in service, in this complaint, sought directions to opposite party to transfer the shares on the basis of transfer deed dated 8.12.1993 and sought Rs.70,000/- compensation for mental pain and agony.

2- Opposite parties in reply, pleaded that complainant as per complaint, purchased the subject units in the secondary market from on Mr. Surjit Singh and sent the same for transfer to opposite party no.2 on 13.12.1993. So, complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant is not the registered holder of units nor did he avail any services from opposite party for consideration. Further pleaded that complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. As per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. In this case, complainant admitted to have sent subject units for transfer on 13.1.1993 and complaint, if any, was to be filed on or before 12.12.1995. Whereas, this complaint has been filed on 14.11.2007, i.e. after a gap of 15 years. Still further, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint, as no part of action has accrued to complainant within limits of this Fora. Complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party Sh. Surjit Singh.

It is denied for want of knowledge that complainant had purchased 100 shares on 8.12.1993 from Sh. Surjit Singh as alleged. Rather, as per their record, these share certificates stand in the name of Surjit Singh r/o 160/4, near Activity Food Store, The Mall, Ludhiana. Further denied that transfer deed alongwith share certificate was sent to opposite party no.13.12.1993 through regd. AD to opposite party no.2. Sending of letter dated 27.4.1994 to complainant is also denied. Further averred that original share certificates alongwith other documents were misplaced by complainant and signatures of the seller Surjit Singh did not tally with the record maintained by opposite party. As such, in view of guidelines issued by UTI, they issued letter to the seller giving 30 days time to raise objections, if any, to said transfer in favour of complainant. They also issued one letter dated 29.5.2006 to complainant showing inability to transfer the shares due to above reasons. It was also conveyed to complainant that signatures of the seller on transfer deed is forged. Rest of the allegations and are also denied and it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.

3- Parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Complainant argued that he purchased share from S. Surjit Singh vide folio no.8063985 and share certificate 5647406, having 100 shares, on 8.12.1993. Transfer deed was duly executed by Surjit Singh in favour of the complainant. Further argued that transfer deed alongwith share certificate have been sent to OP on 13.12.1993 through regd. AD to OP no.2. But still today, these shares have not been transferred in the name of the complainant. He wrote many letters, but to no effect.

5- Opposite party argued that they are unable to effect transfer of shares due to reasons that signatures of the seller on transfer deed are forged. Signatures of the seller did not match with specimen signatures recorded with opposite party. In this way, opposite party was unable to process his request for issuance of duplicate certificate and transfer the units in favour of the complainant. Therefore, finally take up matter with broker through whom, shares were purchased for further remedial action (Ex.P26). They also argued that the complaint is barred by limitation period. As per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, complaint should be initiated within two years from the date of cause of action. But in this case also, opposite party argued that the complainant has grievances if any, should have filed complaint on or before 12.12.1995. Further argued that this complaint was filed on 14.11.2007 which is barred by limitation. The complainant has not explained any reason for delay in filing the complaint and why the complainant has kept quiet for a long time.

6- From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that complainant had sent the subject units for transfer on 13.12.1993 and filed the complaint on 14.11.2007. As it is clear, there is a big gap of 15 years, for which the complainant has kept quiet for a long time. The complainant should have filed complaint on or before 12.12.1995 for transfer of units in his name. But in this case, there is too much delay of almost of 15 years in filing the complaint by the complainant. Hence, complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

Rita Soi wife of Sh. Arun Kumar Soi, r/o H.No.3157, Sector 38-39, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141010.

Versus

1- KARVY Consultant Limited, having its Head Office at Karvy House, 46, Avenue, Street no.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 through its Branch Manager.

2- KARVY Consultant Limited, having its office at SCO 3, Ground Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

1- Complainant obtained share broking account bearing no.11050079 from opposite party no.2 in 2001. Since then, dealing with opposite party no.2, branch of opposite party no.1, at Ludhiana, for sale and purchase of shares. Grouse of the complainant in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that had purchased shares of M/s OMAX Ltd. vide application no.6195128 and then came to know that opposite party no.2 in his share broking account, has illegally transferred account of the complainant from Ludhiana to Bhuvneshwar, without her consent or knowledge. She had never asked to transfer her share broking account to Bhuvneshwar. Due to such illegal transfer of her account to Bhuvneshwar by opposite party, refund amount of aforesaid shares and other shares of the complainant which was to be deposited in above share broking account, could not be deposited. Also due to such wrongful act of opposite party, she could not purchase new shares, causing huge financial loss. She then requested many times opposite party to transfer her account to Ludhiana from Bhuvneshwar. Due to such act of opposite party, she suffered financial loss and consequently by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sought compensation of Rs.1 lac from opposite party.

2- Opposite party in their reply, have not disputed factual position, as alleged by the complainant qua opening of share broking account with them at Ludhiana. Also admitted that her address from Ludhiana to Bhuvneshwar, was shown in their account. But claimed that it happened due to clerical error at the time of upgradation of system. Address of the complainant was typed wrongly due to such clerical error. Despite such error, account o the complainant remained operational from Ludhiana. Complainant as such has not suffered any loss on account of mentioning wrong address of her account. As per record, complainant was allotted 20 shares of Omax Limited on 3.8.2007 which were sold by her on 3rd December, 2007 at Ludhiana. She also sold 400 shares of Oswal Chem Ltd. on 31.10.2007 at Ludhiana and all those transactions were done by her in her account through opposite party at Ludhiana, without any hindrance or suffering loss. So, complainant has not suffered any loss due to this clerical error. On account of such error, complainant was never prevented from dealing with her account. When such mistake came to their notice, the same was immediately corrected, by recording correct address of the complainant. No mental tension or financial loss on account of their act, was suffered by the complainant.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- It is true that complainant is resident of Ludhiana and at the time of opening share broking account with opposite party, had given her address of Ludhiana. But opposite party of their own, in their record, changed her address fro Ludhiana to Bhuvneshwar, as apparent from client master list Ex.C1 dated 22.8.2007. Therein, her name Rita Soi is correctly recorded, but against father’s/husband’s name and address, mistake was committed, by recording SK Syed Saheb, Flat no.-1-21 Banaja Apartments, near Banadurga Temple Unit-6, Bhubaneshwar. Though her client ID number remained the same as 11050079.

5- This error according to ld. counsel for opposite party, occurred due to clerical mistake or typing error, at the time of upgradation of their system and wrongly typed her address. We have no reason to disbelieve assertion of opposite party, as sworn by affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Kartik Sharma, branch manager of opposite party no.2 that mistake occurred due to clerical error.

6- Human being is bound to commit some error or mistake, as he is not super human being or super power, not liable to commit any error or mistake. If such error or mistake found to be bonafide, then would be excusable, otherwise not. Opposite party would not have earned any benefit in either way, by changing intentionally or deliberately address of its own customer. Rather, by doing so, they would put themselves to inconvenience and trouble. Therefore, we have no reason to discard plea of the opposite party that such mistake occurred bonafidely and not intentionally.

7- Now arise questions what loss was suffered by the complainant on account of clerical error or mistake on part of opposite party. It is argued on behalf of opposite party that despite such error, complainant continued to trade through her account, by effecting sale purchase of the shares. In support, attention was drawn to transaction statement Ex.R1 from 1.12.2006 to 24.7.2008. This statement shows that on 3rd August, 2007 and 3.12.2007, complainant had affected transactions, when on 3.8.2007, 20 shares of Omax Ltd. were allotted which were disposed on 31.2.2007. Likewise on 31.10.2007, disposed 400 shares of Oswal Chem EQ. Also on 31.10.2007, disposed 50 shares of Radic Khait New EQ New FV Rs.2/-. Therefore, it is apparent that despite error by changing address of the complainant, she had been affecting sale and purchase of shares of her account through opposite party no.2. No hindrance due to such reason on her such activity of sale purchase of shares, was put.

8- Complainant has placed on record letter Ex.C3 dated 29.10.2007 addressed to Intime Spectrum Registry, Mumbai, claiming refund of Omaxe Ltd. and conveying that has not received refund of Rs.43400/- and requested them to send the draft of the same to her. Another letter placed is Ex.C4 dated 28.9.2007, addressed to same party to whom Ex.C3 was addressed. It was conveyed in the letter that had applied for 160 shares by paying Rs.49600/-, but was allotted 20 shares in her folio of Demat account no.11050079 with opposite party no.2, but they had transferred her account to Bhuvneshwar, by mistake, resulting in refund order being sent to wrong address. Same was returned undelivered and was sent to her after checking address from the application. But in that refund order, account number was mentioned wrong, so it was sent back for correction and thereafter, returned to her. Sh however conveyed that her Demat account has been corrected by opposite party, so new refund order be issued in her favour.

9- From aforesaid letter Ex.C4, appears that only inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to change of her address in Demat account, was that refund of Rs.49600/- sent from Mumbai, by M/s Intime Spectrum Registry Ltd., reached her late, as refund was sent to Bhuvneshwar and when sender received back the same, they again sent it to the complainant. So, appears for few days in between she couldn’t utilize her money, this happened on account of unintentional mistake committed by opposite party. This mistake has to be taken, as not rendering proper services by a service provider to its own consumer, but while assessing the compensation, we shall have to keep in mind that mistake so committed was bonafide and not intentional.

10- In view o above discussion, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.500/- in all to complainant for the error committed by them, within 30 days of receipt of copy of order which be supplied to the parties free of charge.