K F Paul And Family vs Datamatics Finance And Services Limited

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 30.06.2009 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 950 of 2008 filed by the petitioners herein. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.04.2008 of the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (hereafter, ''the District Forum'') in consumer complaint no. 95 of 2000. The District Forum, by its aforesaid order, had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as per their status before the District Forum.

AS complainants before the District Forum, the petitioners alleged, by way of a one-page handwritten complaint, that the opposite parties (OPs) had committed deficiency in service and caused them financial loss of Rs. 50,400/- in the repurchase of their 16,800 units (of Magnum Multiplier Plus Scheme floated by OP 2) by depriving them of the net asset value (NAV) of these units as on 04.01.2000 though they had lodged the MMPS unit certificates with OP 1 on 30.12.1999 at 2 p.m. The OPs opposed the complaint before the District Forum by filing written version and clarifying that according to the joint decision of the OPs before the Scheme became open-ended from 01.04.1998, the NAV to be applied for sale/repurchase was to be that declared by OP 2 at the end of business on the date of lodgment of the applications/certificates if they were lodged with OP 1 upto 2 p.m. of that date and of the next working date if the lodgment was after 2 p.m. In accordance with the practice adopted by OP 1 to avoid confusion, the date of receipt of the applications/certificates was stamped as that date if the requests were received upto 2 p.m. and as the next date if they were received after 2 p.m. There was no practice of entering the time of receipt on the stamped endorsements. As the units offered for repurchase by the complainants were received before 2 p.m. on 30.12.1999, the date was recorded as 30.12.1999 and the repurchase amount payable to the complainants was computed on the basis of the NAV of that date (30.12.1999) and not on the NAV of 04.01.2000 (the next working day). The payment warrants were dispatched to the complainants on 12.01.2000 which they received on 13.01.2000.

ON consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the District Forum held that the OPs had not committed any deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission, in turn, dismissed the appeal filed by the complainants against the dismissal of their complaint.

THE revision petition was first dismissed by this Commission on account of default of and non-prosecution by the complainants. However, on their application, the petition was restored and Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Commission on behalf of the petitioners who had pleaded inability to engage counsel and sought legal aid. We have heard Ms. Tiwari and Mr. Anil Tiwari on behalf of the parties and considered the documents brought on record, including the District Forum''s original record.

AS brought out by the documents before the District Forum, OP 1 did not have the practice of entering the time of lodgment of applications/certificates, etc. for repurchases. This was in accordance with the minutes of the meeting held on 28.02.1998 between the representatives of the two OPs. The relevant record read as: "5. Processing of Repurchases and Resales under the Open Ended Scheme a) Repurchases i. Repurchase requests received upto 2 p.m. will be considered as lodgments for the day. The repurchase requests received after 2 p.m. will be considered as lodgments for the next day. The confirmatory receipt / acknowledgement issued to the investor will carry the date accordingly."

In the complaint, the complainants stated that they had lodged their statement of accounts with OP 1 at 2 p.m. on 30.12.1999 - this is also borne out by the three counterfoils they enclosed with the complaint. However, they later changed their version that the time of lodgment was 3.20 p.m., apparently to take advantage of the guidelines of the Securities and Exchanges Board of India (SEBI) issued in this behalf in March 2004. On the other hand, OP 1 produced copies of all SOAs filed by the complainants and of some other investors also to show that there was no practice of entering the time and only dates were stamped in acknowledgement of receipt of requests for repurchase. The allegation of the complainants is thus without any basis.

IN view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.