Jairam Das Dengwani vs Datamatics Financial Services Limited And Anr.

COMPLAINAN T -petitioner herein being aggrieved against the Order passed by the Foras below, whereunder the Foras below have dismissed the complaint, has filed the present Revision Petition.

SHORTLY stated, the facts of the case are:

COMPLAINAN T /petitioner, in his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'' for short), averred that he had purchased 2000 units of scheme Master Gain -2 floated by Datamatics Financial Services Limited -respondent No. 1 herein in the year 1992. It is alleged that a draft of Rs. 20,000, drawn on Central Bank of India, Main Branch -respondent No. 2 herein, was sent for purchase of the said units. It is alleged that petitioner did not receive the unit certificates from respondent No. l. The petitioner intimated respondent No. l about non -receipt of certificates but did not receive any response from it. Thereafter, petitioner went to Bombay and made inquiries from respondent No. 2. The petitioner was informed about the details and particulars of the units allotted to him and he has given the particulars in paragraph 2 of the complaint. It is alleged that since the petitioner did not receive the Unit certificates, he had sent several letters as well as telegram to respondent No. l but the same was not responded to by respondent No. l. It is alleged that on 10.7.1998, respondent No. l intimated the petitioner that 800 units of the complainant were being transferred to another person. On receiving the said intimation, the complainant, by his letter dated 6.8.1998, again intimated respondent No. l that he never received the Unit certificates and that he has not transferred the said Unit certificates to any other person. It is further averred that on 6.9.1998, he received a letter dated 22.8.1998 from respondent No. 1 in which respondent No. l intimated the petitioner that he should within 20 days submit a copy of the F.I.R. or a Court Order. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 14.9.1998 with a request to respondent No. 1 not to transfer the petitioner''s Unit certificates in favour of any other person. On being noticed, respondent No. l entered appearance and filed his written statement. It was averred therein that Unit Trust of India is a statutory Corporation and had floated the Capital Growth Unit Scheme -1992 referred as Master Gain. Respondent No. l was appointed as Registrar and Transfer Agent for the said scheme. It is averred that the petitioner was allotted 2000 Units under Folio No. W6528487 and the said Unit certificates were despatched to him on the address given by the petitioner in his application through registered post. That it was presumed by respondent No. l that certificates must have been received by the petitioner. However, on receiving the intimation from petitioner about the non -receipt of the certificates, respondent No. 1 discovered that out of the Units allotted to the petitioner, 1700 Units had already been transferred to the third parties as per details given in the written statement. It was averred that since the transfer documents regarding the said Units were found to be in order, the transfer as above was effected. It was averred that on receipt of the request for transferring the Units, respondent No. l sent hold notices on 19.10.1995 and 27.8.1996 to the petitioner. As respondent No. 1 did not receive any response to the hold notices, it was presumed that the petitioner had no objection to the transfer of the Units and, accordingly, after following the procedure, the certificates were transferred. It was averred that 300 Units still stand in the name of the petitioner and he can obtain them after furnishing the requisite documents to respondent No. 1.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short) dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint. It was further held that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering the services. Accordingly, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

AGGRIEVED against the Order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short). The State Commission, by a well -considered Order, has dismissed the Appeal.

IN the present case, Chief Manager of the Unit Trust of India had put in appearance in person at the time of hearing of the Appeal. It was submitted by him that the transfer of 1700 Units, which were allotted to the petitioner under the said scheme, was effected after giving hold notices on 19.10.1995 and 27.8.1996 to the petitioner. As there was no response to the hold notices, the transfers were effected after following the rules and regulations in this regard.

THE State Commission had examined the postal bulk register which had been placed on record and marked as Annexure -B which indicates that the hold notices were sent as alleged to the petitioner. To the written version given by respondent No. l, the petitioner did not file any rejoinder or counter affidavit or any other material to rebut the averments made by respondent No. l The State Commission has further noticed that the copy of the letter dated 13.8.1998 placed on the record of the District Forum appeared to be unsigned. The copy of the letters or intimation sent prior to 13.8.1998 have not been placed on record. Thus, the averment that the petitioner had sent several letters and telegraphic messages to respondent No. l does not seem to be correct as copy of the letters or telegrams sent before 13.8.1998 have not been put on record.

THE Units were applied for in the year 1992 and the notice was sent regarding the non -receipt of the Units for the first time in the year 1998, i.e. after a period of six years. No reasonable person of common prudence would have waited for a long period of six years before lodging the written protest about the non -receipt of the Units. No reasons have been given by the petitioner to explain the delay of six years in lodging the protest.

RESPONDENT No. l, on receipt of the request for transfer of 1700 Units, sent hold notices dated 19.10.1995 and 27.8.1996 to the petitioner to which no response was received. After waiting for sufficiently long time, the units were transferred by respondent No. l after following the rules and the regulations laid down. Petitioner made no effort to join the persons in whose favour the Units had been transferred as party respondent to get to the truth.

WE are in agreement with the view taken by the Foras below that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent No. l. The findings recorded by the Foras below is a finding of fact based on the evidence which cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no orders as to costs. R.P. dismissed.