Back
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President;
Mr. Sada Nand & Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
CAN BANK MUTUAL FUND (TRUSTEE CANARA BANK)—Appellant
versus
MISS RAJNI—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 186 of 1998—Decided on 25.1.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Attribution of delay in payment to the correct party is crucial in determining liability and success of an appeal.
Headnote:
Can Bank Mutual Fund - Repurchase Dispute - The court found that the units were repurchased by Canara Bank and not by Canara Bank Mutual Funds. The delay in payment was attributed to Canara Bank, not the appellant, leading to the appeal's success.
Fact of the Case:
Miss Rajni invested in Canstar Units with Canara Mutual Fund and later applied for repurchase, which was declined. Canara Bank repurchased the units in 1997 at a delayed payment, leading to the complaint and the District Forum's order for interest compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the units were repurchased by Canara Bank, not Canara Bank Mutual Funds, and the delay in payment was attributed to Canara Bank, not the appellant, leading to the appeal's success.
Issues: Dispute over repurchase of Canstar Units and compensation for delayed payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in payment was attributed to Canara Bank, not the appellant, leading to the appeal's success.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Mr. Sada Nand, Member—Miss Rajni, D/o Sh. D.D. Abrol invested a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Canara Mutual Fund (Trustee Canara Bank), Orient House, Adi Marzban Path, Ballard Estate, Bombay, on 17.9.1990 and obtained 1,000 Canstar Units bearing Certificate Nos. 3068359 to 3068368 and distinctive Nos. 0701947281 to 0701947380. She applied for the repurchase of Canstars by the opposite party, but the request was declined. In 1997, Can Bank repurchased the said units at a price of Rs. 23/- per canstar. The grievance of the complainant is that the payment was delayed and she had to arrange money from other sources at a higher cost and that she be compensated for the same. The District Forum on 9.10.1998 ordered that the complainant was entitled to interest @ 15% p.a. for the period 10.11.1997 to 30.12.1997. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred by the Can Bank Mutual Fund.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the units were re-purchased by the Canara Bank and not by the Canara Bank Mutual Funds and that the Can Bank Mutual Funds was not in the picture. The deficiency, if any, was on the part of Canara Bank which has an altogether separate identity and was not impleaded as a party. After perusal of the record, we find that the contention of the appellant is correct. It was Canara Bank who had made this announcement that the amount had been received by the aforesaid Bank. If there was delay in disbursement, it was on the part of Canara Bank and not the appellant. Thus, the conclusion is that the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Order set aside.
––
