w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Registrar Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd. v/s Padmabati Dutta

    S.C. Case No. FA/334 of 2012
    Decided On, 23 May 2014
    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: Amit Kumar Ghosh, Ld., Advocate. For the Respondent: Debasish Chatterjee, Ld., Advocate.

Judgment Text
Kalidas Mukherjee, President:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Bankura in case no.9 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to pay the redemption charge and dividends as per calculation and the compensation of Rs.25,000/- within 60 days from the date of judgment failing which the Complainant will be at liberty to execute the order according to law.

The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that her husband purchased 500 units from the OP under the scheme known as 'Capital Growth Scheme 1992 (Master Gain – 1992)' and got the necessary certificate. The Complainant is the nominee. The Complainant’s husband expired on 13/11/03. After the demise of Sudeb Chandra Dutta, the husband of the Complainant, a dividend warrant was issued in the name of her deceased husband, but it could not be encashed. The Complainant being the recorded nominee in relation to the certificate, applied for repurchase/redemption duly accompanied with the original certificates and furnishing bank particulars verified by the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Rajgram Branch for repurchase. The dividend was returned to the OP along with the purchase application dated 29/03/04. The Complainant made correspondences with the OP several times, but to no effect. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the dividend warrants were sent to the Complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. It is submitted that there was fraudulent encashment by wrongful interception in postal transit. It is submitted that since it was lost in transit there was no deficiency on the part of the Appellant. It is contended that there was non-joinder of necessary party.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the cheque was sent to the account of other person, but not to that of the Complainant. It is contended that the Complainant’s account lies with the UCO Bank, but it was sent to SBI and nobody has said that it was encashed.

We have heard the submission made by both sides and examined the papers on record. Admittedly, the husband of the Complainant purchased 500 units of Master Gain – 1992. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of the husband the present Complainant being the wife received the dividend warrant standing in the name of her husband and returned it to the OP with the prayer for repurchase/redemption. It is the case of the Appellant/OP that the cheque was sent to the Complainant/Respondent. But on perusal of the papers on record it is clear that there is no evidence to show that the said cheque was ever encashed by anyone. The Complainant’s consistent case is that the OP by letter dated 18/02/10 expressed their regrets for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and the Authority further directed the Complainant to provide Bank Account Statement from 05/04/04. Since the OP could not prove that the cheque was encashed by any

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
one, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Learned District Forum and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent/Complainant.