Ashok Bhan, President—Complainant-petitioner herein being aggrieved against the Order passed by the Foras below, where under the Foras below have dismissed the complaint, has filed the present Revision Petition.

Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

2. Complainant/petitioner, in his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’ for short), averred that he had purchased 2000 units of scheme Master Gain-2 floated by Datamatics Financial Services Limited-respondent no.1 herein in the year 1992. It is alleged that a draft of Rs. 20,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India, Main Branch-respondent no.2 herein, was sent for purchase of the said units. It is alleged that petitioner did not receive the unit certificates from respondent no.1. The petitioner intimated respondent no.1 about non-receipt of certificates but did not receive any response from it. Thereafter, petitioner went to Bombay and made enquiries from respondent no.2. The petitioner was informed about the details and particulars of the units allotted to him and he has given the particulars in paragraph 2 of the complaint. It is alleged that since the petitioner did not receive the Unit certificates, he had sent several letters as well as telegram to respondent no.1 but the same was not responded to by respondent no.1. It is alleged that on 10.07.1998, respondent no.1 intimated the petitioner that 800 units of the complainant were being transferred to another person. On receiving the said intimation, the complainant, by his letter dated 06.08.1998, again intimated respondent no.1 that he never received the unit certificates and that he has not transferred the said unit certificates to any other person. It is further averred that on 06.09.1998, he received a letter dated 22.08.1998 from respondent no.1 in which respondent no.1 intimated the petitioner that he should within 20 days submit a copy of the F.I.R. or a Court Order. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 14.09.1998 with a request to respondent no.1 not to transfer the petitioner’s unit certificates in favour of any other person.

3. On being noticed, respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed his written statement. It was averred therein that Unit Trust of India is a statutory Corporation and had floated the Capital Growth Unit Scheme-1992 referred as Mastergain. Respondent no.1 was appointed as Registrar and Transfer Agent for the said scheme. It is averred that the petitioner was allotted 2000 units under Folio No.W6528487 and the said unit certificates were dispatched to him on the address given by the petitioner in his application through registered post. That it was presumed by respondent no.1 that certificates must have been received by the petitioner. However, on receiving the intimation from petitioner about the non-receipt of the certificates, respondent no.1 discovered that out of the units allotted to the petitioner, 1700 units had already been transferred to the third parties as per details given in the written statement. It was averred that since the transfer documents regarding the said units were found to be in order, the transfer as above was effected. It was averred that on receipt of the request for transferring the units, respondent no.1 sent hold notices on 19.10.1995 and 27.08.1996 to the petitioner. As respondent no.1 did not receive any response to the hold notices, it was presumed that the petitioner had no objection to the transfer of the units and, accordingly, after following the procedure, the certificates were transferred. It was averred that 300 units still stand in the name of the petitioner and he can obtain them after furnishing the requisite documents to Respondent No.1.

4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint