UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. SABITRI DEVI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, Smt. Sabitri Devi Agarwal, purchased 500 units of Master Shares from M/s. Balaji Investments and sent them to the Registrar of Unit Trust of India, M/s. M. N. Dastur and Co. for transferring the shares in her favour. While her application for transfer was pending with M. N. Dastur and Co. she entered into an agreement with one Parameswaralal Santuka to sell the master shares on receipt of the transferred certificates. The master shares were lodged with the Registrar of the UTI on 29.4.1993 and the transfer was affected on 11.8.1993. The case of the complainant is that since she had not obtained the transfer certificates within 9.8.1993, she was unable to resale the shares to Parameswara Lal Santuka for which she had suffered a loss of Rs. 8,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that she has since not received the transfer certificates transferred in her name in time she had to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to Parameswara Lal Santuka. It is further the case of the complainant that the complainant could have gained a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by selling the shares at the stock market and would have gained a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by investing the sale proceeds in shares of other companies like Lipton India Ltd., Tata Tea and Hindustan Lever. A sum of Rs. 36,000/- was claimed for financial loss on this account.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the complainant succeeded before the District Forum and the State Commission, we do not find any merit in this case. It is not the case of the complainant that the Unit Trust of India was paid any money by the complainant. She had purchased the shares from the registered holder and forwarded them to the Registrar of the UTI for registration and the transfer. The transfer was affected after more than three months. The transfer should have been affected within a period of three months. But, if a transferee even before the transfer is registered in her name enters into an agreement to sell the shares she is entering into a speculative transaction. The Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses. The complainant took a risk in entering into a contract for sale of the masters shares even before she became the registered owner of them. Moreover, the allegation that she could have purchased shares of other companies which have done well is also without any merit. She could have equally bought shares of companies which faired badly and suffered loss. It is idle to conjuncture as to what she would have happened had if the transfer was affected by the UTI before 19th August, 1993. We are of the view that this complaint should not have been entertained at all. We set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.