1- Harjit Kaur daughter of Sh. Bhajan Singh;

2- Sh. Bhajan Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh, both residents of village Ottalan, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.



…..Complainants.

Versus



1- Unit Trust of India through its Branch Manager, Ferozegandhi Market, Ludhiana.

2- Registrar, Datamatics, Financial Services, B-5 Part-B, Cross Line, MIDC, Andheri East Bombay.

….Opposite parties.








O R D E R









1- Complainant invested Rs.5000/- in UTI under “UTI Master gain”, in the year 1992. Opposite party no.2 was its registrar of the scheme. Opposite party no.1 issued certificates no.035172468 to 035172472, folio no.3670489. In February, 2005, complainant approached opposite party, to encash his certificates and applied accordingly. But received communication dated 21.2.2005 from opposite partyno.2 that signatures of first holder Harjit Kaur, were not matching. After applying again, documents were sent to opposite party no.2.


After making inquiry qua encashment of the certificates, was apprised by opposite party no.2 that they have sent a cheque under registered letter no.6952673 on 18.3.2006. That letter was never delivered to her and was returned to the sender on 7.4.2006, as complainant was out of station. Subsequently, received letter dated 30.4.2007 from opposite party no.2 that unit certificates were surrendered for re-purchase by the complainant on 30.9.2006 and the amount was paid with warrant no.3869140. Complainant never received that warrant, so sent legal notice dated 6.7.2007 for payment of value of the certificates.


After verifying her saving bank account no.4659 with Oriental Bank of Commercial, found that no cheque of Rs.15,751/- has been deposited by opposite party in her account. The cheque bearing account number sent by opposite party no.2, was never received or credited to her account. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 demanded undertaking in this behalf, attested by bank manager, to process her case further. The necessary affidavit with the signatures of the bank manager, was furnished to opposite party no.2 on 30.7.2007, but they failed to pay the amount to the complainant.


Consequently, complainant stands harassed by the opposite party since February, 2005, till April, 2008, by not paying dividend amount in her favour. Such act on their part, claimed amounting to deficiency of service, by filing the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sought principal amount of Rs.15,751/- with 12% interest, Rs.50,000/- compensation for harassment from them.

2- Initially, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement. They pleaded that signatures of Harjit Kaur first holder do not tally with the signatures as per record maintained by the opposite party. Further pleaded that in the first week of September, 2006, opposite party dispatched warrant bearing no.3869140 for Rs.15,751/- with her saving bank account no.4659, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Samrala, at correspondence address of the complainant, vide registered letter no.6952673 ,which was duly received by the complainant. So, amount of unit certificate had been duly paid vide warrant no.3869140 for Rs.15,751/-. Further averred that they are ready to pay the amount of warrant, in case not encashed by the complainant.

3- Thereafter complaint was dismissed in default. On application for restoration of the same, opposite party did not appear and allowed themselves to be proceeded exparte.

4- In exparte evidence, complainants tendered their affidavits alongwith certain documents. We have perused the record.

5- From receipt Ex.C5, it is apparent that amount Rs.5000/- was invested by the complainant in UTI Mutual fund, as per this acknowledgement slip and was given registered folio no.92 N 3670489. The first dividend warrant issued by opposite party to the complainant, on her request to surrender her mutual fund certificates, was never delivered or encashed by her. This is apparent from her bank account statement (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4) from 15.2.2006 to 24.3.2008. As that warrant carried her saving bank account no.4659 of Oriental Bank of Commerce.


Then complainant approached opposite party no.2 for payment, who then sought vide their letter Ex.C7 dated 21.2.2005, to submit her request for duplicate dividend warrant, duly attested by the bank manager, to enable them to comply with her request. Opposite party no.2 then vide letter Ex.C9, intimated the complainant that warrant for Rs.15,751/- containing her S/B account no.4659, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Samrala, was printed and dispatched in Ist week of September, 2006, on appropriate address. But the envelope wasn’t received un-delivered by them. This information was provided consequent to legal notice dated 6.7.2007 Ex.C11.

6- Then complainant in compliance to letter Ex.C7 of opposite party no.2, forwarded banker’s certificate Ex.C10 dated 3.7.2007, certifying that earlier dividend warrant wasn’t credited to account no.4659 of the complainant. It was subsequently that opposite party issued dividend warrant no.3869140 dated 9.9.2008 for Rs.15,175/- to the complainant. This dividend warrant was received and encashed by the complainant, which aspect is not disputed or denied.

7- In this scenario of aforesaid circumstances, argued on behalf of the complainant that in place of original dividend amount of Rs.15,751/-, she was paid lesser amount of Rs.15,175/-, due to deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Therefore, entitled for the balance due in her favour, alongwith compensation for harassment suffered.

8- Complainant has sought encashment of her certificates in April, 2005. but the dividend warrant could not be delivered to her, as per own admission, due to absence from the house and the registry was sent back undelivered. For such non-delivery or non-receipt of dividend amount, opposite party can not be blamed. Complainant thereafter complied with requirements of communication Ex.C7 of opposite party, by making them available certificate Ex.C10 dated 30.7.2007 of bank manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, that her earlier dividend of Rs.15,751/- so issued, wasn’t credited to the saving bank account no.4659. But opposite party then instead of refunding the same, sent dividend of Rs.15,175/-(Ex.C13) dated 9.9.2008. Whereas, they should have refunded her entire amount of Rs.15,751/-. Therefore, by not paying full amount, opposite party would be guilty of mis-conduct and liable to pay the difference.

9- Also opposite party took more than one year, after making available declaration (Ex.C10 dated 30.7.2007) duly attested by the bank manager, to refund the amount vide dividend warrant on 9.9.2008. A period of month, in our view, would have been sufficient for opposite party no.2, to pay the dividend amount, by issuing duplicate dividend warrant in her favour, but took more than a year. Hence, opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper service to its consumer. Therefore, would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.15,751/- from 1.9.2007 till 8.9.2008.