HARISH CHAND KUKREJA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA (MUTUAL FUND)

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 7.8.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 3782/98 - entitled Mr. H.C. Kukreja v. State Bank of India Mutual Fund.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant in the present appeal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that he was the holder of 120 units of SBI Mutual Fund. His grievance in the complaint, filed by him in nutshell was that he had not received the dividend for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 from the respondent on the said mutual fund. It was stated in the complaint that the respondent had not paid the dividend due and payable to the appellant despite repeated requests. It was prayed by the appellant that the respondent be directed to pay the dividend to the appellant. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the written version/written statement filed on behalf of the respondent the stand taken was that the appellant had no locus-standi to file the complaint as the S.B.I. Mutual funds were not issued in the name of the appellant. It was further stated that the dividend in question for years mentioned in the complaint, were duly sent by the respondent to the holder Ms. Sharda Devi Kukreja and later on when it was reported that the same were not delivered to said Ms. Sharda Devi Kukreja, the respondent immediately sent a letter through Computronics Financial Services India Ltd. to the Post Master General calling upon the Postal Authorities to enquire about the non-delivery of the Regd. Envelope, containing the dividend, sent to the holder of the mutual fund. Simultaneously, the holder of the mutual fund Ms. Sharda Devi Kukreja was advised to furnish indemnity bond so that duplicate dividend warrants could be issued in her name but despite specific requests no indemnity bond was furnished by said Ms. Sharda Devi Kukreja.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. However, the learned District Forum vide impugned order has directed the respondent to forward the dividend warrant for the year 1996-97 to the holder of Mutual Fund.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In view of the facts stated by the respondents in its reply the correctness of which is not disputed by the appellant even before us it cannot be stated that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The learned District Forum, in the given facts, was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which in our opinion suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.