State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jatinder Singh vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 July, 2019
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 83 of 2019 Date of Institution : 24.04.2019 Date of Decision : 15.07.2019 1] Jatinder Singh s/o Sh. Bakhshish Singh, R/o House No.5777 - B, Sector 38, West Chandigarh. 2] Rajinder Kaur w/o Jatinder Singh, R/o House No.5777-B, Sector 38, West Chandigarh. .....Appellants/Complainants. Versus 1] Bank of Baroda (in which Dena Bank has been merged w.e.f. 01.04.2019), Corporate Office - Dena Corporate Centre, C-10, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, through its Managing Director. 2] Bank of Baroda (in which Dena Bank has been merged w.e.f. 01.04.2019), Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019, through its Branch Manager. 3] Bank of Baroda (in which Dena Bank has been merged w.e.f. 01.04.2019), SCO 182, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh-160038, through its Branch Manager. 4] Karvy Stock Broking Limited, SCO 2424, Sector 22-C, Himalaya Marg, Chandigarh-160022 through its Branch Head. 5] Karvy Computer Share Private Limited, (Registrar of HDFC Standard Life IPO), Karvy House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034, Andhra Pradesh, India, through its Managing Director. 6] Stock Holding Corporation of India, 2nd Floor, SCO No.154- 155, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Branch Manager. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 08.04.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.433 of 2018. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH [RETD.], PRESIDENT. MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Argued by:
Sh. Jatinder Singh, appellant No.1 in person and on behalf of appellant No.2.
Sh. Iqbal Mohammad, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER In this appeal, the appellants/complainants have challenged order dated 08.04.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum') vide which, complaint bearing Nno.433 of 2018 filed by them was dismissed by the Forum.
2. The core question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether there was any deficiency on the part of respondents No.1 to 3 - Dena Bank in not allotting IPO shares of HDFC Standard Life to in favour of the appellants/complainants despite submission of applications by them. The stand of the respondents/opposite parties before the Forum was that the slip shares, as desired, could not be materialized and as such, the appellants/complainants were adequately compensated by way of payment of Rs.40,950/-, which, as admitted by the appellants/complainants, was credited in their account. The reason for dismissal given by the Forum is that since the appellants/complainants have already gained Rs.40,950/- merely on the basis of submission of applications for allotment of shares and that too without any investment or loss of money, the complaint appeared to have been filed for compensation as speculative gains without any supportive evidence thereof.
3. It may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that the application forms for allotment of shares were submitted by the appellants/complainants on 10.11.2017. Thereafter vide letter dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure C-2), Opposite Party No.3 - Dena Bank informed Sh. Jatinder Singh, complainant No.1 that his Account bearing No.122510028997 maintained with it carried a credit balance of Rs.5,71,087.48 as on 20.11.2017 and showed lien of Rs.5,65,500/- against three applications of Rs.1,88,500/- each in favour of HDFC Life up-to 21.12.2099. Thereafter, the appellant No.1/complainant No.1 wrote letter dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure C-3) to Dena Bank, Dena Corporate Centre, C-40, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 wherein agitated the matter qua non-allotment of shares and requested Dena Bank to allot the same. In this letter, he also gave the details of Application Number, Bid Numbers, Number of Shares applied, Amount blocked, Name of first Applicant and Depository/A/c No.
4. The aforesaid letter dated 22.11.2017 was replied by the Respondent No.6/Opposite Party No.6 vide letter dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure C-4) wherein it was intimated to the appellants/ complainants that after successful bid on the exchange by Stock Holding, the applications were deposited with the bankers on time. It was also informed that allotments are to be done by the Registrar to the issue and Stock Holding has no role in the allotment process.
5. Thereafter, vide email dated 28.11.2017 (Annexure C-5), one Vaneesh .S, Dy. Manager, RIS (Corporate Registry) of Opposite Party No.5 - Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. informed the appellants/ complainants as under:-
"We thank you for your e-mail with respect to your application made in the subject IPO issue.
Upon verification of our records, we have observed that the said application was bided in NSE/BSE but the same was not processed by the ASBA Banker with regards to banking procedure. Hence, the application was not considered for basis of allotment. However, we are forwarding the same to ASBA Banker for the further investigation.
We request you to kindly bear with us for the resolution."
6. Thereafter, the aforesaid factum of delay on the part of ASBA Banker was taken by the appellants/complainants with Dena Bank vide email dated 03.12.2017 (Annexure C-6) qua not processing the application for IPO, wherein it was specifically stated as under:-
"Kindly refer to the trail mail by Karvy in response to my mail dated 23rd Nov and 25th Nov 2017. It clearly indicates that Dena Bank has not processed the application for IPO...."
7. The aforesaid email dated 03.12.2017 (Annexure C-6) was followed by email dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure C-7) wherein the appellants/complainants wrote, inter-alia, as under:-
"Surprised that inspite of writing mails to your email id on 23rd Nov, 25th Nov and 3rd December 2017, till date there is no revert to the emails nor any resolution provided to the complaint.
I hereby request you again to kindly look into my complaint and provide a resolution.
Extremely disturbed to note that a Senior Citizen is being made to suffer because of mistakes at the bank end and still bank is not bothering to respond and resolve the complaint......"
8. It was only on 19.12.2017 that vide email (Annexure C-8) that the Chief Manager of Dena Bank acknowledged the mail sent by the appellants/complainant and informed that the matter has already been referred to Higher authorities for needful.
9. The record further reveals that it was only after notice issued by the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Sector 17, Chandigarh, on a complaint filed with it with the appellants/complainants against Dena Bank that an amount of Rs.40,950/- was credited in the account of the appellants/complainants.
10. In view of position stated above, it is very much clear that there was deficiency on the part of Dena Bank in not processing the applications of the appellants/complainants for allotment of the shares. Had there been no default on the part of the Bank in processing the applications for allotment of shares, there would have been no question of crediting an amount of Rs.40,950/- in the account of the appellants/complainants. Crediting aforesaid amount in account of the appellants/complainants is a clear cut admission of deficiency in service on the part of Dena Bank. Moreover, to the emails sent by the appellants/complainants, no satisfactory reply was given by Dena Bank. Although share closing rate has already been given to the appellants/complainants but there was apparent deficiency in service on the part of Dena Bank in not processing/uploading the applications of the appellants/ complainants for allotment of shares. It was mandatory on the part of Dena Bank to perform its part, in which it defaulted. It may also be stated here that stock prices move up and down every minute due to fluctuations in supply and demand. It might had happened that in case, the shares are allotted to the appellants/complainants, they might have earned more than what was paid to them by respondents No.1 to 3 - Bank. At the time of arguments also, Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 - Dena Bank was unable to give any satisfactory explanation as to the delay in processing the applications of the appellants/complainants for allotment of shares.
11. In our considered opinion, the appellants/complainants are entitled to compensation only qua deficiency in rendering service on the part of respondents No.1 to 3 - Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda after merger). However, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.4 to 6. Otherwise also, at the time of admission hearing on 26.04.2019, Sh. Jatinder Singh, appellant No.1 gave up service of notice upon aforesaid respondents.
12. For the reason recorded above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. Consumer Complaint bearing No.433 of 2018 is partly allowed against Respondents No.1 to 3/Opposite Parties No.3, with costs, and they are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
Ø to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellants/complainants on account of deficiency in rendering service within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
13. However, the complaint stands dismissed against Opposite Parties No.4 to 6 being devoid of any merit with no order as to cost.
14. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.
15. File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 15.07.2019.
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad