Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D.P. Wadhwa, President, J.K. Mehra, Rajyalakshmi Rao and B.K. Taimni, Members
M.N. DASTUR AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
NOMULA ANIL KUMAR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2001
Decided on : 05-12-2001
Mr. Parveen Mehdiratta, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The duty of the petitioners to act promptly in transferring units and the consumer's right to seek compensation for losses incurred due to delay.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Transfer of Units - The court upheld the order of the District Forum directing the petitioners to compensate the complainant for the delay in transferring units, emphasizing the duty of the petitioners to act promptly and the consumer's right to seek compensation for losses incurred.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought transfer of units in his name after his grandfather's death, but the petitioners delayed the transfer, causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the District Forum's order, emphasizing the petitioners' inaction and the complainant's entitlement to compensation for the delay in transferring units.
Issues: Delay in transferring units, petitioners' inaction, jurisdiction of the District Forum
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' continued inaction caused harassment to the complainant, and the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The duty of the petitioners to promptly transfer units and the consumer's right to seek compensation for losses were emphasized.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the order of the District Forum, directing the petitioners to compensate the complainant for the delay in transferring units.
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, President - First petitioner who is the authorised agent of Unit Trust of India and Unit Trust of India have filed this petition challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison dated 6.7.2001 dismissing their appeal and affirming the order of the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.
2. As a matter of fact State Commission has taken a serious note of the working of the petitioners and went to the extent of observing that a great deal of harassment is caused to the complainant by continued inaction on the part of the petitioners.
3. Complainant-respondent was nominee of his grand-father in various units which were in the name of his grand-father N. Muralidhar Rao. When grand-father died on 19.1.1992, complainant through his father had been writing to the petitioners for transfer of the units in his name. In fact on two-three occassions father of the complainant went to Mumbai for the purpose. State Commission has noticed that the petitioners were dodging transfer of units on some pretext or the other. Since the units were not transferred in the name of the complainant he approached the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 4,25,000 towards loss sustained by him on account of enormous delay in sending units. Complainant also claimed expense towards travel, legal and mental agony. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,27,987 with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realisation. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was also ordered to be paid towards cost.
4. State Commission has noticed that the units were transferred ultimately only on 8.11.1995. In written version filed by the petitioners they had stated that relevant death certificate of N. Muralidhar Rao in English and duly attested was not submitted in time and that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both these contentions were negative. There is no evidence to rebut the allegations made by the complainant. State Commission accordingly upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with cost amounting to Rs. 2,000. We see no ground for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed.
