BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

Dated this the 13th March 2009

COMPLAINT NO.244/2008

(Admitted on 5.9.2008)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Lt. Col. B.K. Kullolli,
S/o Dr. K.R. Kullolli,
Residing at 304,
Medha Apartments,
CDR. Jorge Marties Road,
Mallikatta, Mangalore,
Represented by his
Power of Attorney
Holder Mrs. Shruthi Kilar. …. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Mrs. Suma R.Nayak)
VERSUS
1. U T I Mutual Fund,
1st Floor, EsselTowers,
Bunts Hostel Circle,
Mangalore.
Represented by its Manager
Mr.K.Ravi.

2. Karvy Mutual Fund Services,
A division of Karvy Computer
Share (P) Ltd.,
Local Office at: Ground Floor,
Mahendra Arcade,
Kodialbail,
Mangalore. ….OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Parties: Appeared in person.)
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant held units in UTI Petro Growth Fund bearing A/c No.51414870224 which was to be redeemed in the month of July 2007 i.e., 25.7.2007. The Complainant submits that, he had furnished all the particulars of his bank account to Opposite Party No.1 and instructed them to credit his account with the redemption amount of Rs.4,006.26/- this instruction was given in the month July 2007 itself. Inspite of lapse of more than 11 months, the Complainant did not receive the redemption amount hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay interest at 18% from 25.7.2007 till 31.7.2008 on Rs.4,006.26/- and further claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings of Rs.1,05,000/-.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared in person through one of their staff filed affidavit by way of version by stating that, the Opposite Party No.1 is the branch of UTI Mutual Fund at Mangalore and the 2nd Opposite Party is the Registrar and Transfer Agent appointed by UTI Mutual Fund. It is submitted that, UTI Mutual Fund processed the Complainant request and cheque bearing No.717599 dated 30.7.2007 for Rs. 4,006.26 towards the repurchase proceeds was sent to the Complainant by ordinary post in the normal course. The said cheque has not been returned undelivered to the erstwhile Registrar. Subsequently, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party through legal notice, the records were verified and it was observed that since the original cheque was not paid, the cheque amount was converted in to a fixed deposit with the banker of the Opposite Parties as per the procedure. As the original cheque was not paid the Opposite Party steps to issue the fresh cheque together with the interest @ 8.54% being the rate of interest was sent to the Complainant and the same was received by the Complainant and contended that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
(ii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?



(i)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Mrs.Shruthi Kilar (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and served the interrogatories. Ex C1 to C43 were marked as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Chandra Shekar Shetty, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.2 (RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on her. Both the parties have submitted written notes of arguments.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINTS NO.(i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant is an Army officer represented by his wife Power of Attorney Holder. Opposite Party No.1 is the branch incharge of the UTI Petro Growth Fund and Opposite Party No.2 is the Registrar of the said UTI Petro Growth Fund. It is undisputed fact that, the Complainant was holding units in UTI Petro Growth Fund bearing Account No.51414870224 which was sought to be redeemed in the month of July 2007 i.e. 25.7.2007.
The grievances of the Complainant is that, the Complainant had instructed Opposite Party No.1 to credit the redemption amount of Rs.4,006.26 to his bank account in the month of July 2007 itself. But the Opposite Parties failed to do the same, thereafter the Complainant made several correspondences i.e. altogether Ex.C1 to C43. Inspite of that, the Opposite Parties not bothered to credit the redemption amount of Rs.4,006.26 and after long persuasion the Opposite Party ultimately on 31.7.2008 i.e. after one year from date of claim for redemption paid the above said amount by way of cheque that amounts to deficiency.
It is significant to note that, the documents filed before the Complainant i.e. Ex.C1 to C43 the correspondences made by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties in voluminous proved beyond doubt that the Complainant made several request despite of the same the Opposite Parties not bothered to redeem the amount and credit the same into his account, it shows their gross negligence towards the customers/Complainant herein. In the instant case, the Opposite Party taken a contention that the redemption amount has sent through ordinary post to the Complainant and the same has not been returned undelivered to the erstwhile registrar, except the oral statement there is no documentary proof in order to show that the Opposite Parties made attempt to send the redemption amount to the Complainant. In the absence of the same, we presume that, no attempt has been made by the Opposite Parties despite of the several requests/correspondences made by the Complainant. It is proved that the above said amount has been paid by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant on 31.7.2008 i.e. after lapse of one year which amounts to deficiency of service.
By considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Opposite Parties jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/-for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the Complainant and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for the inconvenience and harassment and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised, signed and pronounced by us in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)




PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)

Complainant:

K.G. Subbaratha Shetty
S/o. N.Govinda Sheety Late
Age: 62 years
R/at Sri. Panchamukhi Nilaya
No.599, 3rd Block
1st Main, 1st Cross
Adarshanagar
Arashinakunte Village
Nelamangala Taluk
Bangalore-562 123



/vs/




Opposite Parties:


1.The Unit Trust of India
UTI House
No.29, Rajaji Salavi
Chennai- 01
R/by its Manager


2.The Manager
Unit Trust of India
No.26/27, Raheja Towers
12th Floor, (West Wing)
M.G. Road, P.B. No.5084
Bangalore.

O R D E R



SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the refund of Rs.30,000/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a bond/unit from Op Institution for an amount of Rs.30,000/- in his wife Smt. Pramila’s name for a period of 15 years. The said bond was taken up on 19/01/1995 and the half yearly installment to be paid by the complainant at Rs.1,000/-. The membership number assigned to his wife was UL-950352005067. As per the scheme the complainant started paying the said installment of Rs.1000/- half yearly from June 1995. The Op has issued receipt for the same. The complainant has been regularly paying the installment amount of Rs.1,000/- half yearly to the OP for the said unit linked plan. The payment receipts from June 1995 to July 2001 issued by the OP. The complainant received a cheque bearing No.489481 dated 20-7-2001 for an amount of Rs.13,347.20 from the Op after the complainant paid his 12th installment in the month of July. The complainant as on that day had made payment of Rs.15,000/- towards the said scheme to the OP.

The complainant has never made any application or issued any notice to terminate the contract or discontinue the payment of installment for the said scheme. The Op has also not issued any notice stating that the said contact is terminated. The complainant on receipt of the said cheque contacted the Op for clarification about the cheque and also the complainant wanted to know whether he should continue the payment of the installment under the unit linked plan but no response whatsoever was received from the OP and the OP has failed to provide efficient service in this matter. The complainant’s wife Smt. S.Pramila for whom the complainant had purchased the Insurance bond under the unit linked plan died on 5/5/2003. After the demise of his wife, the complainant made several correspondences with the Op requesting them to make payment of Rs.30,000/- as the complainant’s wife was died and the complainant was entitled to claim the said amount. But the Op neither paid the said amount to the complainant nor responded to any correspondence of the complainant. So far the Op has not communicated anything about the said amount. The complainant is entitled to a death claim of Rs.30,000/- on the eve of the death of his wife Smt. S.Pramila under the said unit linked insurance scheme of the Op. The complainant has made several correspondences and visited the op requesting them to settle the claim but so far the Op has not bothered to settle it. This has caused great mental distress, economic loss and inconvenience to the complainant. To this effect, the complainant has caused a legal notice dated 24th March 2008 to the Op through his lawyer but the Op has not bothered to reply to the notice and settle the claim. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Ops appeared personally through their Chief Manager, filed their version with attestation of Notary and submitted that they do not have a separate evidence as their main objection statement has been attested by the Notary. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments on both sides.

Learned counsel for complainant in his arguments narrated all the facts which are noted in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of the complainant. The Chief Manager of the Ops submitted that after receiving the application from the complainant only the membership certificate was terminated and the OP will act without surrendering the membership certificate. After receipt of the amount, complainant and his wife kept quite without making any correspondences or they should have paid the premium soon after the receipt of the amount from the OP. No letter also received from the complainant. Under such circumstances it was presumed that the complainant opted for termination of the membership and therefore the amount which was received by the Op was sent back to the complainant. The Chief Manager further submitted that wife of the complainant was died in 2003 and complaint was filed on 5/08/2008. This compliant was filed after gap of 5 years and therefore there is no limitation to file this complaint. He further submitted that no legal notice was received from the Ops and it is a Unit Link and depending on the day they risk on market. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The point for consideration is whether this complaint is barred by limitations. Admittedly, the wife of the complaint was died during the year 2003 and the complaint was filed on 05/08/2008. When we peruse the documents produced by the complainant during life time of wife of the complainant letter was also written to the OP. A legal notice was issued on 24/03/2008 and therefore by looking into the dates of the legal notice, this complaint is within time and the complaint is maintainable.

Another point for consideration is whether the OP can act of terminating the membership without surrendering the membership certificate. According to learned counsel for OPs, Ops will act on the application or letter of terminating without surrendering the bond. At the time of receiving the amount towards premium, the guidelines were also issued to its members by the Ops. When we peruse the clauses at 9A it is mentioned as ‘In case of premature withdrawal, it is necessary to surrender the original membership certificate with letter of request’ and at clause-D it is mentioned as “If the member subsequently goes abroad, re-purchase proceeds can be credited only but his non-resident (ordinary) account with a bank in India”. When we peruse the membership certificate dated 09/01/1995 issued by the OP at the bottom in notes at 1, it is mentioned as “This certificate should be preserved carefully and surrendered to the trust after expiry of the period 10 years or 15 years, as the case may be, or earlier, if there is any claim” From these conditions it is clearly establishes that if a member wants to withdraw prematurely he has to surrender the membership certificate with a letter of request. Admittedly, the membership certificate was not surrendered to the Ops. The complainant specifically stated that his wife and himself has not at all opted for the premature withdrawal and no letter of request was made to the Ops. Without a letter of request or surrendering a certificate, the Op unilaterally took a decision and terminated the membership and sent the amount. As stated by Chief Manager of Op if a letter was sent by the wife of the complainant for termination of membership certificate, it should have produced before this forum in support of his contention. But no such letter has been produced by the OP. From these documents it is clearly establishes that the OP unilaterally took decision and terminated the membership of the wife of the complainant and returned the amount. Naturally, the wife of the complainant lost the opportunity of getting more amount in the Scheme.

The complainant in his complaint claimed the amount of Rs.30,000/- as mentioned in the bond with interest as death claim. When we peruse the letter of the wife of the complainant it is mentioned as complainant was the nominee under the scheme. When the membership was terminated and the amount was returned, the complainant can not claim the benefits under the scheme. The Ops should have responded the legal notice issued by the complainant but till the filing of this complaint, the Ops remained silent. Ops themselves have not followed the guidelines issued by themselves and also violated the terms and conditions which are mentioned in the bond i.e., the membership certificate. This sort of an act on the part of the Ops definitely amounts to deficiency in service and because of their negligence, the wife of the complainant lost benefit under the scheme for which the Ops have to compensate the complainant.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.

S.Krishnakumar,
S/o. Subramaniam,
209,Periyar Colony,
Anupparpalayampudur,
Anupparpalayam, Tirupur – 641602. --- Complainant
Vs.
1.M.Gopalakrishnan, Manager,
UTI Mutual Fund
Coimbatore – 641018.
2.The Managing Director,
M/s. UTI Technology Services Ltd.,
Navi, Mumbai – 400 614. --- Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 16.3.09, 9.4.09, 22.4.09 29.4.09 and 30.4.09 in the presence of Thiru. S.Radharamanan and Thiru D.Raja, Advocates for complainant and the opposite parties appeared in person and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:


ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to return the Deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- dividend, bonus etc. along with interest at 24%p.a., on the above amount from 22.3.06 till date of payment and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings.


The case of the complaint are as follows:

1.The Complainant on 22.3.06 made a deposit under Deposit account No. 6513005 of Rs.10,000/- along with application under the scheme “UTI CONTRA FUND” and the opposite party promised to return the fund along with interest Dividend including Bonus etc., on his requirement. The complainant badly needed the funds and for meeting the medical expenses of his wife had applied for refund of the said Deposit amount along with due benefits and with that letter he had enclosed due form for change of address and thereby intimated the changed address of him. Whereas the opposite parties have chosen to send the cheque bearing No. 011162 dated 9.7.07 for Rs.9.842/98 to the Complainant’s, changed (New) address.

2. But in that cheque, they have correctly mentioned the account number i.e. 18930200001226 of Bank of Baroda but wrongly mentioned the type of account as “S.B.” instead of current account. By pointing out that he had sent letter dated 17.7.07, thereby requested the opposite parties to change the type of Account as Current Account in that cheque by Courier, along with the said cheque through professional courier-invoice No. 2639236. But for the reasons best known to them the opposite parties have not returned the cheque by making necessary correction with regard to the type of account as “Current Account” or another cheque. Thereafter the complainant met the 1st Opposite party and explained the reasons for the requirement of the amount. Whereas the 1st opposite party took time for one Month in order to verify and pose the position to the complainant.

3. As per the instruction of the 1st opposite party, the complainant waited for one month and since not received the corrected cheque, he again sent letter dated 29.8.07 by courier on 3.10.07 to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party have dragged the matter for further one month. Therefore the complainant again sent demand letter dated 26.12.07 to the 1st opposite party and also marked a copy to the 2nd opposite party under R.P.A/d. Both the opposite parties have received the same, but of no avail. Thereafter dragging him for further one month, when he met the 1st opposite party who told him that the corrected cheque was already sent to him by post. Immediately the complainant had checked up with the Anupparpalayam Post Office (Tirupur) who told him, no Thapal cover had been come to him. Again he had contacted the 1st opposite party and informed the same.


4. The 1st opposite party had directed him to check up the matter with the Velampalayam Post Office, where he previously resided and there also he was told that no Thapal cover was come to him and till this day it has not been received by the complainant. The complainant had sent Lawyer’s notice dated 25.2.08 to both the opposite parties, thereby demanding the deposit amount along with due dividend, bonus etc and along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- from 22.3.06 till date of payment. Even after receipt of the said notice the opposite parties wantonly not settled the amount due to the complainant. Hence this Complaint.

The case of the Opposite parties are as follows:

5. The subject repurchase cheque received from the Complainant for correction was sent to the second opposite party for carrying out the correction, in the month of October 2007. As KCPL was appointed as the new registrar for all the Schemes of UTI Mutual Fund including the subject Scheme, the migration of the subject Scheme was under process when the request of the complainant was sent to the second opposite party. Owing to take-over of voluminous records and huge database by the new Registrar, there were certain administrative constraints faced by the new registrar and as a result of which, the service of the complainant which was taken-over from the second opposite party could not be carried out by the new registrar in time.


6. The first opposite party has followed with the new Registrar and obtained the fresh cheque and the same is enclosed to this reply. There were no willful latches on the part of the Opposite parties. Though the delay was not deliberate, the opposite parties as an investor friendly gestured have decided to compensate the complainant for the delay involved and accordingly steps have been taken to issue a cheque towards the interest @ 15% p.a on the repurchase amount, i.e Rs.9,842/98 from the date of the original cheque till the date of payment, so that there is no loss sustained by the complainant. The interest cheque shall be handed-over to the complainant within 2 weeks from the date of this reply. Thus the grievance of the complainant has not only been redressed but also the complainant has been substantially compensated for the period involved. The complainant has not sustained any loss, the exaggerated claim for Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.


7. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavits alongwith documents Ex.A1 to A10 was marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

The point for consideration is
1.Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1:
8. The case of the complainant is, the opposite parties having received the consideration by way of deposit to the tune of Rs.10,000 and even after repeated demands have not chosen to return the funds for the urgent medical expenses of the complainant’s wife.


9. The contention of the opposite partiesis owing to take-over of voluminous records and huge database by the new Registrar, there were certain administrative constraints faced by the new registrar and as a result of which, the service of the complainant which was taken-over from the second opposite party could not be carried out by the new registrar in time, and there is no willful latches on the part of the opposite parties.


10. The opposite parties in their Proof Affidavit in para 6 have clearly admitted their mistake. The opposite parties having received the consideration have failed to return the deposit amount along with other benefits even when the complainant needed the same for the medical expenses of his wife. In the present case the opposite parties have chosen to send the cheque but wrongly mentioned type of account as “SB” instead of current account. There is an inordinate delay on the part of opposite parties to settle the deposit amount. We are unable to accept the reason for the delay. Because of the deficient act of the opposite parties the complainant was forced to meet the medical expenses of his wife by borrowing amount from 3rd parties. We are of the view that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief from the opposite parties.

11.In the result, we direct the opposite parties to return the deposit amount of Rs.10,000, dividend bonus etc. along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the abovesaid amount from 22.3.2006 till date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order U/s. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

S. Mahaboob Peer, Muslim, aged about 42 years,

Residing at D.no. 6/423-1, Near Mattipeddapuli,

Trunk road, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.

Vs.



1. The Accounts Officer, UTI Mutual Fund TUI Towers,

GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),

Mumbai.

2. The Branch Manager, UTI Mutual Fund,

2/790, Sairam Towers, Nagarajupet, Kadapa city. ….. Respondents.


O R D E R



(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),



1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased units from R2 for Rs. 1,00,000/- under UTI Energy Fund – Growth plan group on 19-3-2008 vide file No. 501218278721. The market value of a unit at the time of purchase was Rs. 10.13 Ps. The respondent allotted units and issued account statement to the complainant. Whenever, the complainant had intention to sell away the units, the respondent should deliver the amount as per the market value. The complainant had intended to sell away the units.

He approached R2 and submitted the documents. The R2 informed that the market value of the complainant’s units was Rs. 74,446-20 as on 8-9-2008 and hence; the complainant accepted and fulfilled the formalities. The R1 informed that the amount would be sent at an early date through the complainant’s account. Some time later Rs. 7,583-85Ps was credited into account of the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the R2, who gave an evasive reply but expressed to inform to R1. Finally the complainant got issued a notice to both the respondents on 16-10-2008. The R1 gave reply with false allegations that there was a computer mistake and the matter would be settled with correct amount. Therefore, there was deficiency of service and hence, the complaint was filed for Rs. 66,862-15Ps with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.



3. The respondents filed a counter admitting that the UTI Mutual Fund had launched various schemes and plans including UTI Energy - Fund. M/s Karvy Computer share Pvt. Ltd., was Registrar and Transfer Agent for all the schemes and plans including UTI Energy Fund. The complainant invested only Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed and redemption proceeds were paid and hence, there was no short payment as alleged by the complainant.



4. On 15-2-2008 the complainant invested Rs. 10,000/- and issued a cheque bearing No. 142353 for Rs. 10,000/- dt. 15-2-2008 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kadapa towards application amount. It was very clear in the application form. The complainant had to submit his bank statement pertaining to the said amount maintained with the Corporation Bank, Kadapa. The application was processed by the Registrar of the Opposite parties. Due to punching mistake at the time of processing, the amount was mentioned Rs. 1,00,000/- in stead of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant later applied for redemption of the units in September 2008. So the redemption was processed for correct number of units. The complainant was to be allotted 791.139 units for the investment of Rs. 10,000/- but the amount was shown as Rs. 1,00,000/- and the units were shown as 7911.392. After receiving the notice the Registrar of the Opposite parties gave a reply and clarified the factual position. It was not correct that the complainant had invested an amount on 19-3-2008. Therefore, there were no merits in the complaint and there was no cause of action and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?



6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B3 were marked.



7. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant purchased some units under UTI Energy Fund Growth Plan on 19-3-2008 vide file No. 501218278721 @ 10-13Ps per unit. He filed Ex. A2 UTI Mutual Fund Account statement which disclosed that the complainant purchased 7,911-392 units for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the price as on 19-3-2008 was Rs. 1,26,400/- and current value was Rs. 80,142-40. The complainant filed Ex. A1 account statement copy dt. 11-9-2008 for the same units and the price per unit as on 10-9-2008 @ Rs. 9.41 Ps. and purchase amount was Rs. 1,00,000/- and the current value of the units was Rs. 74,446-20. But the respondents filed a Xerox copy of the application for purchase units under Ex. B3 which disclosed the amount of investment was Rs. 10,000/- by way of cheque No. 142353, dt. 15-2-2008 on Corporation Bank, Kadapa. The respondents also filed Xerox copy of Ex. A1 & A2 as under Ex. B2 and B1 respectively.

The complainant argued that he invested Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchase of units but it was mentioned in the form as Rs. 10,000/-. The respondents contended that the investment amount was only Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant and the complainant took an opportunity of mistake committed in the account statement prepared by the R1 company and claimed more amount to get unlawful gain and redemption proceeds were also paid already. In these circumstances the dispute was with regard to investment of the amount i.e. whether Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the respondents or Rs. 1,00,000/- as contended by the complainant and claim of more redemption amount. It would require more oral and documentary evidence. The complainant got issued a notice to R1 and R2. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A3. The R1 sent a reply to the complainant. It was Ex. A4. Thus it would be decided in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not under the C.P. Act in the District Forum, Kadapa. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.


8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs, directing the complainant with liberty to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.

Koppu Vani, D/o.K.V.Satyanarayana, age: 19 years, occu:

Student, r/o.H.No.2-5-43, P.S.R.Road, Khammam.



…Complainant

And



1. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, Sridhar Reddy complex,

Vujaya Talkies Junction, Eluru road, Vijayawada.



2. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, C.B.D., Plot No.3,

Belapoor, Mumbai.



…Opposite parties.



This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite parties No.1 and 2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-



ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)



1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the father of the complainant obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from opposite party No.1 by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. 20,000/- for each certificate, the maturity amount of each certificate is of Rs.55,178.88 Ps., Subsequently, on advise of opposite parties, said two certificates have been converted into VIS ILP scheme and on 16-2-2004 the opposite party endorsed on the said certificates, since then the opposite parties did not respond to give any reply or to make any payment, as such the father of the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 9-8-2006 and requested to send the redemption letter for encashment of two CGGF certificates, same was received by the opposite party No.1 on 18-8-2006and inspite of receipt of the letter, dt.9-8-2006, the opposite parties failed to give any reply. The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties illegally withheld the amounts since 1994, as such the complainant is entitled to receive the same together with 24% interest per annum and issued legal notice on 19-1-2007 and demanded to pay the entire amount with interest, in turn the opposite parties sent a cheque for Rs.55,178/-, the complainant returned the amount, as the opposite parties did not pay the total amount under two CGGF certificates and requested the opposite party to pay total amount as per entitlement, instead of making payment, the opposite party failed to communicate anything. It amounts to deficiency in service. As such the complainant prayed for redressal, to settle the claim in respect of two CGGF certificates and prayed to direct to pay the amount of 4,000 units at the rate of Rs.50/- per unit together with interest at 24% P.A. from the actual payable date and to award Rs.10,000/- for damages and costs.

2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following attested copies of documents

1) CGGF certificate bearing Nos. 302970030002012 and 302970030002019



2) Office copy of legal notice, dt.19-1-2007 with acknowledgements

3) Letter addressed by the father of the complainant, dt.9-8-2006

to the opposite party No.1.



3. On receipt of notice, Mr.Amaranath appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties, did not resist the averments of the complaint by way of filing counter.

4. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

Point:

5. The case of the complainant is that her father obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from the opposite parties by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- for each certificate, and as per the said scheme, after expiry of maturity period, the opposite parties are liable to pay the maturity amount to the certificate holder and in support of her case, the complainant filed two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019. According to the said certificates, the date of maturity is mentioned as 24-9-2007, as such it is clear, after completion of maturity period, the opposite parties have to pay the maturity amount to the complainant and it is the case of complainant that the opposite parties paid Rs.55,178/- through the cheques under certificate bearing No. 302970030002019 and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.55,178/- under CGGF certificate bearing No.302970030002012. As such the complainant filed part satisfaction memo. Accordingly the part satisfaction was recorded and posted the matter for remaining balance of Rs.55,178/-. Inspite of giving 10 adjournments, the opposite parties failed to pay the remaining balance amount under certificate bearing No.302970030002012, it is clear that the opposite parties fialed to provide proper service to their consumers and it amounts to deficiency in service. As such the opposite parties are liable to bear loss of the complainant and in view of the above discussion the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount under CGGF certificate bearing No.302970030002012, i.e. an amount of Rs.55,178/- (Rupees fifty five thousand, one hundred and seventy eight only) together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of maturity, i.e. from 24-9-2007 till the date of realization and also liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

Koppu Vani, D/o.K.V.Satyanarayana, age: 19 years, occu:

Student, r/o.H.No.2-5-43, P.S.R.Road, Khammam.



…Complainant

And



1. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, Sridhar Reddy complex,

Vujaya Talkies Junction, Eluru road, Vijayawada.



2. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, C.B.D., Plot No.3,

Belapoor, Mumbai.



…Opposite parties.



This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite parties No.1 and 2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-



ORDER






1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the father of the complainant obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from opposite party No.1 by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. 20,000/- for each certificate, the maturity amount of each certificate is of Rs.55,178.88 Ps., Subsequently, on advise of opposite parties, said two certificates have been converted into VIS ILP scheme and on 16-2-2004 the opposite party endorsed on the said certificates, since then the opposite parties did not respond to give any reply or to make any payment, as such the father of the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 9-8-2006 and requested to send the redemption letter for encashment of two CGGF certificates, same was received by the opposite party No.1 on 18-8-2006and inspite of receipt of the letter, dt.9-8-2006, the opposite parties failed to give any reply.


The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties illegally withheld the amounts since 1994, as such the complainant is entitled to receive the same together with 24% interest per annum and issued legal notice on 19-1-2007 and demanded to pay the entire amount with interest, in turn the opposite parties sent a cheque for Rs.55,178/-, the complainant returned the amount, as the opposite parties did not pay the total amount under two CGGF certificates and requested the opposite party to pay total amount as per entitlement, instead of making payment, the opposite party failed to communicate anything. It amounts to deficiency in service. As such the complainant prayed for redressal, to settle the claim in respect of two CGGF certificates and prayed to direct to pay the amount of 4,000 units at the rate of Rs.50/- per unit together with interest at 24% P.A. from the actual payable date and to award Rs.10,000/- for damages and costs.

2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following attested copies of documents

1) CGGF certificate bearing Nos. 302970030002012 and 302970030002019



2) Office copy of legal notice, dt.19-1-2007 with acknowledgements

3) Letter addressed by the father of the complainant, dt.9-8-2006

to the opposite party No.1.



3. On receipt of notice, Mr.Amaranath appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties, did not resist the averments of the complaint by way of filing counter.

4. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

Point:

5. The case of the complainant is that her father obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from the opposite parties by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- for each certificate, and as per the said scheme, after expiry of maturity period, the opposite parties are liable to pay the maturity amount to the certificate holder and in support of her case, the complainant filed two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019. According to the said certificates, the date of maturity is mentioned as 24-9-2007, as such it is clear, after completion of maturity period, the opposite parties have to pay the maturity amount to the complainant and it is the case of complainant that the opposite parties paid Rs.55,178/- through the cheques under certificate bearing No. 302970030002019 and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.55,178/- under CGGF certificate bearing No.302970030002012.


As such the complainant filed part satisfaction memo. Accordingly the part satisfaction was recorded and posted the matter for remaining balance of Rs.55,178/-. Inspite of giving 10 adjournments, the opposite parties failed to pay the remaining balance amount under certificate bearing No.302970030002012, it is clear that the opposite parties fialed to provide proper service to their consumers and it amounts to deficiency in service. As such the opposite parties are liable to bear loss of the complainant and in view of the above discussion the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount under CGGF certificate bearing No.302970030002012, i.e. an amount of Rs.55,178/- (Rupees fifty five thousand, one hundred and seventy eight only) together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of maturity, i.e. from 24-9-2007 till the date of realization and also liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

Koppu Vani, D/o.K.V.Satyanarayana, age: 19 years, occu:

Student, r/o.H.No.2-5-43, P.S.R.Road, Khammam.



…Complainant

And



1. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, Sridhar Reddy complex,

Vujaya Talkies Junction, Eluru road, Vijayawada.



2. The President, U.T.I. Mutual Funds, C.B.D., Plot No.3,

Belapoor, Mumbai.



…Opposite parties.






ORDER





1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the father of the complainant obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from opposite party No.1 by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. 20,000/- for each certificate, the maturity amount of each certificate is of Rs.55,178.88 Ps., Subsequently, on advise of opposite parties, said two certificates have been converted into VIS ILP scheme and on 16-2-2004 the opposite party endorsed on the said certificates, since then the opposite parties did not respond to give any reply or to make any payment, as such the father of the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 9-8-2006 and requested to send the redemption letter for encashment of two CGGF certificates, same was received by the opposite party No.1 on 18-8-2006and inspite of receipt of the letter, dt.9-8-2006, the opposite parties failed to give any reply.


The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties illegally withheld the amounts since 1994, as such the complainant is entitled to receive the same together with 24% interest per annum and issued legal notice on 19-1-2007 and demanded to pay the entire amount with interest, in turn the opposite parties sent a cheque for Rs.55,178/-, the complainant returned the amount, as the opposite parties did not pay the total amount under two CGGF certificates and requested the opposite party to pay total amount as per entitlement, instead of making payment, the opposite party failed to communicate anything. It amounts to deficiency in service.


As such the complainant prayed for redressal, to settle the claim in respect of two CGGF certificates and prayed to direct to pay the amount of 4,000 units at the rate of Rs.50/- per unit together with interest at 24% P.A. from the actual payable date and to award Rs.10,000/- for damages and costs.

2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following attested copies of documents

1) CGGF certificate bearing Nos. 302970030002012 and 302970030002019



2) Office copy of legal notice, dt.19-1-2007 with acknowledgements

3) Letter addressed by the father of the complainant, dt.9-8-2006

to the opposite party No.1.



3. On receipt of notice, Mr.Amaranath appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties, did not resist the averments of the complaint by way of filing counter.

4. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

Point:

5. The case of the complainant is that her father obtained two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019 from the opposite parties by depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- for each certificate, and as per the said scheme, after expiry of maturity period, the opposite parties are liable to pay the maturity amount to the certificate holder and in support of her case, the complainant filed two CGGF certificate bearing Nos.302970030002012 and 302970030002019.


According to the said certificates, the date of maturity is mentioned as 24-9-2007, as such it is clear, after completion of maturity period, the opposite parties have to pay the maturity amount to the complainant and it is the case of complainant that the opposite parties paid Rs.55,178/- through the cheques under certificate bearing No. 302970030002019 and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.55,178/- under CGGF certificate bearing No.302970030002012.


As such the complainant filed part satisfaction memo. Accordingly the part satisfaction was recorded and posted the matter for remaining balance of Rs.55,178/-. Inspite of giving 10 adjournments, the opposite parties failed to pay the remaining balance amount under certificate bearing No.302970030002012, it is clear that the opposite parties fialed to provide proper service to their consumers and it amounts to deficiency in service. As such the opposite parties are liable to bear loss of the complainant and in view of the above discussion the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Non-payment of unit link insurance plan,1971 maturity amount – M.N.o 14856262 – 10 years.

Its been 10 years of mental & financial harassment by UTI mutual fund (UTI asset management co. pvt. Ltd).I took membership in captioned plan on 28.03.1989, my plan matured on 28.03.1999.

When on non-receipt of maturity amount I approached local delhi office and visited there number of times, they informed that as per UTI’s records, they have send me three cheques for maturity amount, which I never received.

Then they asked me to submit ORIGINAL bond certificate and an undertaking on non-judicial stamp paper etc.

With no response from their side I submitted the same vide my letter dt. 17.06.2006 under the acknowledgement from local office dt. 20.06.2006, thereafter I am running from pillar to post for getting refund of maturity amount.

Then I received one letter dt. 11.10.2006 from locan office stating to furnish the documents which I have already submitted, when I approached local office and told them the same has been submitted by me, then UTI office Mr. oliver minj confirmed me my documents have duly been received and are in order.

When I wrote a letter dt. 26.09.2006 to chairman officee, I was given one letter reference number – UT/O/ 1194/DIS-CS/ 2005-06 vide letter dt. 22.02.2007 to quote it in all future correspondence.
Thereafter I kept writing delhi local office as well as transfer agent M/S karvy. (with all the copies enclosed of the required documents, bond certificates.)

Since then I am running from pillar to post and making phone calls for receipt of my maturity amount, I am in an urgent need of money, my whole family is dependent on me, I request the SEBI grievance board & consumer court to take strict action against UTI asset management and help me refund my maturity amount.

Yours sincerely,

Anand jain

23-C Citizen enclave, sector – 14 extn rohini delhi – 110085

( mob no. : 9811162790)

Consumer Complaint No: 201/2008

Date of presentation: 05.12.2008

Date of decision: 08/01/2010

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sh. Surinder Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Karan Gupta,

R/o Sunny Side, Red Cross Road Solan,

Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The UTI Investor Services Limited, Unit Trust Of India AMC Pvt. Limited, Central Processing Center, Plot No. 3, Sector –II Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614.

2. The UTI Mutual Funds, Flat No. 401/402 Mukesh Apartments Fingask Estate, Shimla 171003

Through its Manager.

3. M/s Karvy Computer share Private Limited, House No. 1-90/2/10E, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhopur, Hyderabad 500081, Through its Managing Director/ Director and General Manager.

4. M/s Karvy Consultants Limited near Anand Complex, The Mall Road Solan, Tehsil and District Solan H.P. Through its General Manager.

5. Shri Sunil Gupta, S/o late Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, Share Broker cum agent, Opposite Girls Senior Secondary School, The Mall Solan,Tehsil and District Solan. H.P.

...Opposite Parties
For the complainant: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No. 1: Mr. Gagan Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Sharda Sharma Authorized Agent.

For the Opposite Parties

No. 3, 4 & 5: Exparte.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, the OP No.5, is, working as Broker at, The Mall, Solan under OPs No.1 & 2. He avers, that, he applied to the OPs No.1 & 2, for allotment of UTI Mutual fund certificate worth Rs.10,000/- through OP nNo.5 and accordingly, the same were allotted to him vide Foloio No.2929977101, vide Investor ID No.292997710 and paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP No.5. The complainant further averred that in the month of June, 2007, he applied for the redemption of the invested money, hence, deposited the documents with the OP No.5, yet, he failed to receive the refund for a long time. The matter was brought to the notice of the OPs No.3 & 4, who assured that the refund would be made immediately. The complainant further averred that he did not receive the refund of the redemption/invested money to the extent of Rs.9760/-. Thereafter, he also issued legal notice to the OPs, who failed to even send its reply. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, contended that it had ceased to be the Registrars of UTI Mutual Fund, w.e.f. 14.12.2007, hence, has no more associated with the schemes of the UTI Mutual Fund, hence, the record is lying with the OP No.3. The OP No.3, in its reply, contend that the dividend warrant of the complainant under UTI-Contra Fund was paid and a cheque bearing No.15225, for Rs.9726.40 dated 05.07.2007, was sent to him, in normal course and when the complainant approached, them, then it came to the light that the cheque had already been encahsed by the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in not refunding, to, him the dividend amount of Rs.9726.40, qua shares so purchased by him from the OPs. However, the OP No.3, in its reply has contended that the cheque bearing No.15225, for Rs.9726.40 dated 05.07.2007, had already been encashed by the complainant, hence, is, exculpating, its liability.

6. However, from the scrutiny of the record, especially, the affidavit filed by the complainant, it stands proved on record, that the purported cheque for Rs.9726.40 has not been proved to be encashed by the complainant, as, no, proof pertaining to the encashment of the said cheque, has been placed on record by the OP No.3. Hence, for lack adduction of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence, on record by the OP No.3, qua the encashment of the cheque bearing No.15225, amounting to Rs.9726.40 dated 05.07.2007, by the complainant, it, cannot be said by any stretch of imagination, that the aforesaid cheque had already been encashed by the complainant, hence, debarring him to file the instant complaint. Since, the aforesaid cheque, has not been proved to be enchased, therefore, it shall be appropriate and in the expedient of interest, if, the OP No.3, is, directed to issue fresh cheque amounting to Rs.9726.40.

7. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.3 to issue fresh cheque amounting to Rs.9726.40 in favour of the complainant, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OP No.3, is, also directed to pay damages of Rs.2500/- to the complainant for causing him, inconvenience and humiliation, besides litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. Hence, the complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

I purchased UTI Mutual Fund on 20th November,2007 and got the statement as well for the NAV's. After 3 years when i went to redeem the NAV's they told me that there are zero NAV's in my account. I went to their PitamPura Delhi office 4-5 times and submitted the relevant documents ( Fund Statement, Bank Statement for the account debit , Affidavit from the Bank that the account is debited by UTI and there is no reversal of the amount by UTI in account) 3-4 times. Talked to their mumbai office but in vain. Following up with the Customer Care ( Santosh, J.N. Lakshmi) but there is not a satisfactory response from last 6-7 months.

Its very bad, frustrating and worst expereince from the UTI mutual fund house.

Please tell me what should i do now and what action should i take now against them.

New Folio No. : 510236789774
Old Folio No. : 3071433721
Name : Vikas Badhwar
Fund Name : UTI - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ( Growth )

Complaint Ref No: 294644773

Before investing in mutual funds, one need to demystify certain misconception and myths about mutual funds. I have explained this in detail in the below link.


Regards,
Ramalingam K, MBA, CFP,
Chief Financial Planner,
Holistic Investment planner private Limited,

I have got UTI Mutual Fund (UTI-Equity Tax Savings Plan). When I checked the protfolio of my account, it has got wrong Bank Account Number and Date of Birth too. When I called the customer care, they told me to produce docs at the nearest branch with sufficient proof. I don't understand why I should prodouce docs repeatedly.

Secondly, there are no provisions to alter or correct information in the UTI web portal. I feel bad to tell who has designed the software.

What I have uderstood is UTI is not customer oriented. Rather they enjoy priority to enforce their way of working. They promise a lot and do a little. I have got two other mutul funds (SBI & Reliance). When I asked them about the changes about my portfolio, they changed it within a few seconds and confirmed too. But UTI ensures to carry out the changes within 10 days and takes almost a month to do the same.

Can somebody suggest me why I should invest in UTI?

Rabindra Nayak
Software Engineer
Syntel Ltd.
9867761981