S.R. Ramesh, a resident of Bengaluru, recently won a case in the consumer courts in the City against a well-known mutual fund company, UTI Mutual Fund. The Court ordered that the Managing Director and the Chief Executive Officer of UTI Mutual Fund should pay the man a compensation of ₹20,000 for deficiency of service.
Mr. Ramesh had invested in one of UTI Mutual Fund’s schemes since February 2012 and had not redeemed any units. By February 2023, Mr. Ramesh’s folio had 56,454 units worth ₹18,75,781. However, when he sent a mail to the company for a detailed account statement on April 2, 2023, he alleged that the company had replied a day later that he had zero value.
Clarification sought
Shocked by this, he sent a mail on the same day to UTI Mutual Fund asking them for a clarification and immediate reply. Upon receiving no immediate reply Mr Ramesh went on to lodge complaints with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Chairman and MD of UTI Mutual Fund Company. The reply came only after 45 days showing that his balance was intact.
This delay was recognised by the Court as defeciency of service on the Company’s part and also said in the order that while the contention of Mr. Ramesh about receiving a mail showing his balance as zero was not genuine, not sending his correct account statement and showing negligence and carelessness was nothing but deficiency of service on the Opposite Party’s part.
Argued his own case
Hence, the Court directed the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of ₹15,000 to the complainant and ₹5,000 as cost of litigation. Mr. Ramesh, who argued his own case, said, “Normally, the replies for such enquiries come within two to three days. In this case, I did not recieve it for 45 days and hence, the Court recognised it as deficiency of service.”
