MANJU BANSAL vs Unit Trust of India

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 7.11.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2961/2001 entitled Mrs. Manju Bansal v. Unit Trust of India & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant Mrs. Manju Bansal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that she was the holder of 1,650 units of Master Shares under Folio No. MF 503181. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant that the appellant had not been paid any dividend and bonus shares for Master Shares, due on 30.6.1993. It was further stated that the appellant had addressed a registered letter dated 23.4.1994 to respondent No. 2 (M/s. M.N. Dastur and Co. Ltd.), the authorised Registrar and Transfer Agents of respondent No. 1 (Unit Trust of India) for the above said Scheme. It was also stated that in the meantime, the appellant had also applied for 1,400/- Right Shares and an amount of Rs. 19,500/- was deposited by the appellant with the respondent No. 1 (UTI) vide receipt dated 26.4.1994 for the aboves aid purpose. It was stated that respondent No. 1 UTI allotted only 100 Right Shares in favour of the appellant against 1,400 Right Shares and the excess amount, amounting to Rs. 18,000/- was retained by the respondent No. 1-UTI. THE grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by her before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that the respondents not only failed to issue dividend and Bonus Shares to the appellant but also refused to refund the excess amount of Rs, 18,000/- retained by them, as a result of which the appellant had to suffer a lot of harassment and irreparable loss. In the complaint filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to issue Right Shares, Bonus Shares and dividend with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the financial loss sustained by her and the harassment caused to her. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and that appellant was not entitled to any benefit because out of 1,650 shares, duplicates of 650 shares had been issued in 1992 and 300 shares were received for transfer from one Shri Kishore Gopal Bansal of House No. 674-B Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana and another 300 shares were received for transfer from one Shri Ashish Bansal of the same address, which were transferred in the names of said Shri Kishore Gopal Bansal and Shri Ashish Bansal as per their requests. 50 shares out of 1,650 shares had been transferred in the name of one Shri Satpal Mehra, resident of 56, Subzi Mandi, Amritsar. It was stated by the respondents in their reply that all the above facts were duly brought to the notice of the appellant. It was also stated in the reply that the appellant had renounced her right in respect of 1,400 Right Shares in favour of said Shri Ashish Bansal.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that disputed questions of fact cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon in the summary proceedings before a redressal agency established under the Act, and therefore, has advised the appellant to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of her grievances, being raised by the appellant in the complaint filed by her before the District Forum.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Section 13 of the Act and the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act have been made applicable to the proceedings before the State Commission by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. On a bare reading of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act, it is apparent that the Statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of facts, involving taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. It is no doubt true that the redressal agencies, established under the Act, are vested with the power to examine the witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents, but undoubtedly keeping in view the spirit of the Act, such powers are to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased, or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate, oral and documentary evidence, it is open to such redressal agency, established under the Act, to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. In our above views, we stand fortified by two decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission in cases M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC); and B.K. Seth, Managing Director, Indu Video Films (P) Limited v. Chairman, Delhi Financial Corporation & Ors., III (1993) CPJ 327 (NC).

IF the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed by us that the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum decidedly required adjudication in respect of complicated and complex questions of fact, such as whether the appellant in fact had not received the dividend, Right and Bonus Shares or the duplicate certificates in respect of 1,650 Master Shares had been obtained by the appellant from the UTI and had been sold to three different persons as alleged by the respondents. The above complex and complicated questions which requires taking of elaborate evidence and adducing documentary evidence also and thereafter a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence, decidedly cannot be adjudicated upon satisfactorily by a redressal agency established under the Act. In view of the position explained above, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings 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.