MAJOR BALWANT SINGH Vs. KOTHARI PIONEER MUTUAL FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maj. Balwant Singh Minhas and his wife had invested money in "income Builder Account" scheme of Kothari Pioneer Mutual Fund Investment, Chennai. The depositors desired refund of Rs.58,000/- (each) and made request for this purpose at 3.00 p. m. on 8.12.1999 at Company's local office in Sector 35 /b, Chandigarh where it was indicated that the aforesaid refund shall be received by the complainant by 13.12.1999. However, it was remitted to him on 17.12.1999. On account of this alleged delay of 3-4 days, a complaint was instituted alleging that the complainants desired to purchase 200 shares which they had applied in certain Company and was expecting auotment of at least 50 shares and for this reason, he has estimated the probable loss at approximately Rs.1.00 lac. On 20.4.2000, this complaint has been dismissed by District Forum-II, Chandigarh in limine. The main reasons for dismissal of the complaint in the impugned order are reproduced as under : "on careful consideration and looking to the condition referred to by the complaint, we are unable to find it a case of deficiency in service as to take cognizance of this complaint. The condition is couched in vague terms. It does not say as to when the period of two working days meant for mailing the redemption proceed would start. This condition is subject to certain limitations which also remained unspecified. The registered office of the Company is at Chennai and the marginal delay that occurred could be attributed to communicational reasons. "

(2.) Besides hearing Maj. Balwant Singh, in person we have also perused the complaint. The remittance of the entire money demanded by a Mutual Fund Company, located at Chennai and that too through a local representative of the aforesaid Company by 17.12.1999, in the circumstances of the case really did not prima facie indicate any deficiency and it shall be an abuse of the process of the Court to summon the respondents stationed at Chennai to Chandigarh, especially when we find that the complaint was not even supported by an affidavit. The conclusion is that the order of District Forum-II, Chandigarh does not call for any interference and the appeal is dismissed.