Unit Trust of India vs RASHI DHAWAN

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents sent 4000 units of Master Gain 1992 and 1000 Master Shares Plus for being transferred in her name on 12.11.92. 2500 Master Gain Units were received by the respondent on 28.7.93, 8 months after they had been sent for transfer. 1000 units were received on 1.11.93, 11 months after having been sent and 1000 Master Plus were received on 5.4.93, 4 months after they had been submitted for transfer. Regarding 500 Master Gain Units the opposite party returned the same on 5.2.94 on the ground that the signatures of the transfer did not tally with the signatures appearing on the record with the appellant. They were again sent in May, 94. This time the signatures of the transfer were attested by Notary Public. They were received back without transfer in October, 94 with the same objection namely that the signatures of the transferor did not match with the signature sent in the application for transfer as attested by the Notary Public. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was two fold namely delay in effecting transfer of 4500 units in which the time taken for transfer varied from 4 months to 11 months as detailed above. The other grievance was that 500 units had not been transferred even though the signature of the holder, (transferor) had been duly attested by the Notary Public. The plea of the Opposite Party, appellant herein, before the District Forum was that the Registrar was justified in comparing the signature of the holder furnished by the applicant for transfer with the signatures available on record with the Registrar and mere attestation by the Notary Public did not oblige the Registrar to effect the transfer where the signatures did not tally. The District Forum, however, rejected the said plea and held that once the signatures were attested by the Notary Public it was not open to the Registrar of the UTI to reject the prayer for transferring the unit certificates. This was held to be a deficiency in service and the opp party was directed to transfer 500 units if re submitted in the light of the observations made in the order and also pay Rs. 5,000/ on account of compensation and costs. Aggrieved by the order, the Opposite Party has preferred this appeal.

WE have gone through the records and have heard Mr. Dharam Dev, Authorised Representative of the appellant. We are unable to agree with the observations made by the District Forum. Mere attestation of signatures by the Notary Public does not dispense with the duty of the Registrar to com pare the signatures of the transferor in the transfer deed with the signature of the holder avail able in the records of the company and, in case, the signatures do not tally it is certainly open to the Registrar to reject the application for transfer on that ground. This precaution is necessary in these days of growing fraud and impersonation. The Registrar was, therefore, well within his rights to compare the two signatures and come to a bona fide conclusion that the two signatures did not tally. We, therefore, unhesitatingly set aside the observations to the contrary made in the order under appeal.

The material dates have been mentioned above. There has been undue delay in effecting transfer in respect of 4,500 units as well as in returning the application for transfer and the matter was kept hanging till February, 1994 and for another about 5 months after the application was re submitted in May, 1994 after signatures had been attested by the Notary Public. The delay caused was beyond the reasonable time which would be required to process the application and effect the transfer. The award of Rs. 5,000/ in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not in our view, call for any interference. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the observations referred to in the earlier part of this order, maintain the award of Rs. 5,000/ as compensation/costs. The appeal stands disposed of in these terms. A copy of the order be communicated to both sides as well as District Forum II. Appeal partly allowed.