COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2008<br /> <br /> 20th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1020/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> Meena,<br /> # 37, SAI CHARAN,<br /> VI Cross, Hanumaiah Layout,<br /> Kodige Halli, <br /> Sahakara Nagar Post,<br /> Bangalore – 92.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY <br /> <br /> M/s. Karvy Consultants,<br /> No. 59, “Skanda” <br /> Puttanna Road,<br /> Basavanagudi Branch,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay the compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant applied for the Reliance Power Limited shares on 10.01.2008 and paid an amount of Rs.25,875/-. She was allotted with 16 shares in the last week of March. She got information from the OP to collect her cheque. Believing the said words she issued a cheque in favour of 3rd party with regard to her other commitments. When the said 3rd party presented the cheque it bounced. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence of the OP. On enquiry she came to know that the cheque issued by the OP was not credited to her account at all. Thereafter she collected the another cheque from Basavanagudi Branch of OP and requested them to send it to Malleshwaram Branch. OP is requested to send further cheques to Malleshwaram Branch which is convenient to her, but all her efforts went in futile. Under the circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant applied for 225 shares by paying Rs.25,875/-. Initially she was allotted with 16 shares as contended. The sum amount was credited to the beneficiary account on first February 2008. Rs.6,880/- was adjusted against the shares allotted to her and balance amount of Rs.18,995/- has been sent to her during first week of February 2008 under registered letter. On verification they fond that name of the applicant as per the application form was written as Meena Srinivasan whereas, as per the benpos the name is mentioned as A.P. Meena and joint holder name was P. Srinivasan. That is the reason why they sent the requisition to the concerned Bank to stop payment. Then after getting clarification from complainant they credited the said amount of Rs.18,995/- through NEFT to ICICI Bank account on 05.04.2008. As such there is no default much less deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative <br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has applied for 225 shares of Reliance Power Limited by paying Rs.25,875/- and she was allotted with 16 shares. Thereafter Rs.6,880/- was adjusted against the shares allotted to her and balance amount of Rs.18,995/- was sent to her during the first week of February 2008 under registered post. It is contended by the complainant that she with a fond hope that the said Rs.18,995/- will be credited to her account issued a cheque in favour of 3rd party for certain amount. But to her utter shock and surprise the said cheque issued to the 3rd party bounced with an endorsement of insufficient funds. Thus she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that on verification of the records they noticed the name of the applicant as per the application form was written as Meena Srinivasan, whereas as per the benpos (the data validated from the NSDL as per the client ID and DP ID mentioned in the application) the name as A.P. Meena and joint holder name is P. Srinivasan. That is the reason why they sent an intimation to the Bank to stop payment. This fact is not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP in sending intimation to the Bank to stop payment.<br /> <br /> 8. It further contended by OP that after close scrutiny and verification they were satisfied with the identity of the complainant as the beneficiary with regard to the share transaction, then they credited the said amount of Rs.18,995/- through NEFT to her bank account at ICICI Bank on 05.04.2008. This fact is also not denied by the complainant. With all that what made the complainant to file this complaint on 25.04.2008 is not known. On the perusal of the complaint, it does not disclose any allegations of deficiency in service it speaks to some kind of inconvenience faced by the complainant with regard to sending of the said cheques at Basavanagudi Branch or Malleshwaram Branch of OP. <br /> <br /> 9. Now it is for the complainant to meet the OP and sort out her grievance with regard to sending of the said cheques to certain branch office of her choice at Bangalore. The whole of the relief claimed does not amounts to consumer dispute at all. We are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />