MANJIT KAUR vs Unit Trust of India

UNCALLED for delay on the part of the Unit Trust of India in transferring the shares in the name of the complainant, in short, is the pith and substance of the present complaint. Aggrieved by that delay, the complainant has preferred the present complaint.

THE wheel of the facts around which the present complaint moves is short. THE complainant has stated that she had purchased 500 shares, with distinct numbers stated in the complaint, from the stock market and the seller was Rajiv Kumar Jain of Darya Ganj, New Delhi. THE shares sold by the seller were duly registered in his name at Folio No. MF 435874, under transfer No. 43842/44. In September 1990 the complainant despatched the shares, along with duly executed and stamped transfer deed to respondent-2, who are the Registrar and Share Transfer Agents to the Company forgetting the transfer of the shares registered in her name. THE complainant received a letter dated 27-11-1990 from respondent-2 that the shares despatched by her could not be registered in her name since these belonged to Rajiv Kumar Jain of Rajouri Garden and not to Rajiv Kumar Jain of Daryaganj who had sold these to her. THE signatures of the transferor differed with the specimen signatures recorded with them. In October 1992 the complainant has been duly transferred the shares submitted by her to respondent-2 in September 1990, manifestly at much belated stage and after a long period without any cause or reason. On the notice being served, respondent-1 Unit Trust of India has filed the written statement, admitting that the mistake had occurred due to an error of computer programme as the computer could not differenttiate between Sh. Rajiv Kumar Jain of Rajouri Garden and Sh. Rajiv Kumar Jain of Darya Ganj, New Delhi.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the record of the case.

WHAT meets the eyes first is that in spite of despatching of the shares in September 1990 and for no fault of the complainant, the shares were transferred in her name on 1-10-1992 vide Annexure R7. Vide Annexure R8 dated 10-2-93 the benefits of bonus and dividends were conferred by respondent1 upon the complainant, pending adjudication of the present complaint before this Commission. There cannot be any permanent yard stick for measuring the loss and granting compensation for the delay caused in transferring the shares to the complainant. The delay of more than two years in transferring 500 shares to the complainant is apparent and respondents-1 and 2 have been proved to be deficient in discharging service to the complainant. The quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be weighed with arithmetical precision and more so, judicial notice can be taken of the marked fluctuation of the share market. We are of the view that interest of justice would be served by awarding a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and accordingly, we direct that respondent-1, Unit Trust of India be saddled with the amount of compensation. The modest amount of Rs. 15,000/- includes interest and costs of the present litigation.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint, in the terms indicated above, with a further direction that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by this Commission be paid by the Unit Trust of India to the complainant within two months of the receipt of a copy of these orders. Failing the same, the necessary consequences under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 may follow. Complaint allowed.