Unit Trust of India vs P. MURALI KRISHNA

THE first opposite party in CD 312/1995 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal is the appellant.

THE case of the complainant is that he purchased 200 units of UGS-5000 certificates bearing No. UG92/2/1/12094045 on 7.1.1994. He sent the units to the second opposite party, who are the Registrars and Transfer Agents of the appellants, on 25.1.1994. In spite of several letters dated 4.3.1994, 4.6.1994 and 18.7.1994, there was no response from the second opposite party. Hence he filed CD 342/94. After receiving notice from the District Forum, the second opposite party sent a letter, copy of which, was given to the complainant and the District Forum closed the complaint advising the complainant to write a letter to the second opposite party. THE complainant, accordingly, sent a letter dated 17.5.1995 to the second opposite party giving all details, but, there was no response. Hence, he is constrained to file the complaint seeking for a direction to send duly endorsed 200 Unit Certificates referred to above together with compensation of Rs. one lakh and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it is stated that the complainant had sent the following units Certificates bearing Nos. 91213012972-3/4, 4/4 for 100 units and 912110053829-1/4, 2/4 for 100 Units. The second opposite party has duly transferred the units in the name of the complainant and the certificates were despatched to the complainant by registered post on 14.9.1994. The second opposite party has verified the records and confirmed that the Units are standing in the name of the complainant and they are willing to issue duplicate certificates in the complainant''s executing a letter of undertaking.

The District Forum, on consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly directed them to send 200 Units of UGS-5000 duly endorsed together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, the appeal.

THERE is no dispute that the complainant purchased 200 Units of UGS-5000 on 7.1.1994 and sent them to the second opposite party on 25.1.1994 for transfer. It is admitted in the written version dated 7.12.1995 filed on behalf of both the opposite parties that the second opposite party verified the records and confirms that the 200 Units were sent for transfer and the certificates were despatched to the units holder viz., the complainant on 14.9.1994. It is also confirmed by the second opposite party that the Units stand in the name of the complainant. They are also willing to issue duplicate certificates on the complainant''s executing a letter of undertaking. Even earlier also, the complainant approached the District Forum with CD 342/94 for the same purpose and the second opposite party after receiving the notice from the District Forum sent a letter, a copy of which was given to the complainant and, accordingly, the District Forum advised the complainant to write a letter to the second opposite party for issuance of duplicate certificates. The complainant says that though he has addressed a letter dated 17.5.1995 to the second opposite party furnishing all the details there was no response from the latter. It is also his case that he sent requisition in the form as supplied by the second opposite party for issuance of duplicate certificates. But he learnt that it was not honoured as the format is not the correct one. Though, the opposite parties admitted the receipt of the Units and that they were already sent back to the complainant on 14.9.1994 after effecting transfer in the name of the complainant, but they failed to produce any proof that the Units were received by the complainant on transfer. Hence, merely saying that the Units were transferred in the records in favour of the complainant is not enough but the Units should be returned on physical delivery, which is not done. Hence the District Forum rightly found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum, therefore, rightly directed the opposite parties to send 200 units under certificate as mentioned above.

THE District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the delay in returning the Units duly endorsed since the complainant asserted that he suffered ill-health and acidity problem due to inaction on the part of the opposite parties. He also stated that he developed tension and had to resort to taking medicines. For these reasons and for the delay, the District Forum has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of compensation. Hence, the complaint was rightly allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. THE appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.