An investor with Reliance Mutual Fund complained to SEBI that the Fund had not applied correct NAV on her investment - CIC recommended that the SEBI take a decision on appellant’s complaint within one month & intimate the outcome to the appellant
1. The appellant Smt. Bhavna Ram Parsani submitted RTI application dated 19.09.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai; seeking status and progress report of action taken to resolve her complaint No,. SEBIE/MH-113/0008550/1 dated 17.04.2013; details of action, if any, on her complaint; if no action taken, reasons recorded for the same; copy of the SEBI Citizen Charter etc. through four points.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated informed the appellant that the status of her complaint and relevant correspondence in the matter could be accessed on the SEBI complaint Redress System (SCORES) by feeding the complaint registration number which was allotted at the time of registration of the complaint and her password/email ID Further, in respect of the names and designation s of officials handling her complaint that handling of complaints at SEBI was a collective affair and disclosing the names of officials may endanger the life or physical safety of the person(s) or may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and there exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 15.11.2013 before the first appellate authority. The FAA vide order dated 20.12.2013 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant invested with Reliance Mutual Fund. The Reliance Mutual Fund had not applied correct NAV on her investment. She had complained to SEBI against complaint No,. SEBIE/MH13/0008550/I dated 17.04.2013 followed by reminders. Instead of taking up the matter with Reliance Mutual Fund and ensuring that the rules set were followed, SEBI seems to be protecting Mutual Fund Houses and ignoring the rights of small investors. The respondents stated that the matter was under examination on some policy issues. However, the status of the complaint had been informed to the appellant.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission holds that as far as information in response to appellant’s RTI application is concerned, the respondents had provided status of her complaint to the appellant. However, the Commission recommends that the respondents take a decision on appellant’s complaint within one month and intimate the outcome to the appellant under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Smt. Bhavna Ram Parsani v. Securities & Exchange Board of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/901967