Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/188/2019

Navneet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unit Trust if India - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Abhishek Singh

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	188 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	01.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	04.02.2020

 

 

 

 

 

Navneet Kaur d/o Gian Chand, R/o Village Tagra Hansua, Kalka, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana)

 

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Unit Trust of India, UTI Infrastructure & Technology Services Limited (UTI ITSL), SCO No.70, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh

 

2]  Unit Trust of India, UTI Infrastructure & Technology Services Limited (UTI ITSL), Plot No.3, Sector 11, CBD Blolapur, New Mumbai 400614, through its Managing Director.

 

  ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

            SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

 

Argued By:

Sh.Abhishek Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Brijjit Singh, Adv. for Opposite Parties.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the father of the complainant invested an amount of Rs.3500/- with Opposite Parties in their scheme namely ‘Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan(II)’ [RIP-II] with maturity amount of Rs.21,000/- after a lock-in period/term of 20 years and the said plan was taken in the name of complainant, while she was minor. However, after the maturity period and completion of 20 years, when the complainant and her father approached the Opposite Parties for getting the maturity amount of said plan, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed nor paid any amount.  The Opposite Parties were also requested vide letter dated 11.2.2019 (Ann.C-3), but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the issuance of the bond in question, stated that the said scheme was terminated on and from 31.3.2004 and the OP(s) Trust offered redemption of said scheme as on 31.3.2004 for those unit holders who opted for the same and whose option forms reached the OP by 16.2.2004. Submitted further that for all other unit holders, the Trust offered an alternative avenue of investment to them by converting their investments in the terminated scheme into 6.60% Tax Free Assured Return Scheme Bonds guaranteed by the Government of India.  It is stated that before the date of termination of the scheme from 31.3.2004, individual notices were served to all unit holders on 15.12.2003 under RUP-II giving them option either to opt for payment of the terminal proceeds or for conversion of the terminal proceeds into 6.6% Tradable Tax Free Bonds guaranteed by Govt. of India.  The Opposite Parties averred that they had also circulated public notices in all major national newspapers (Ann.C) on 24.12.2003 announcing and intimating the foreclosure of a number of Assured Return Schemes including the RUP-II w.e.f. April 1, 2004 and wherein it was specified a time schedule for exercise of options, besides giving other details for converting the units under the respective scheme into tax free bonds guaranteed by the government of India.  It was clearly mentioned in the said notices that in case the option form is not received by February 16, 2004, it would be presumed that the unit holder has consented to convert the redemption proceeds into 6.60% Tax Free Tradable ARS Bonds. It is submitted that since no option form was received from the complainant, the terminal proceeds of outstanding units at the time of foreclosure against said RUP-II certificate amounting Rs.7691.70 was divided by the face value of a bond i.e. Rs.100/- and was converted in default option into Govt. of India Tradable Tax Free Bond Certificate  No.32275541 bearing ID No.167275745 for 76 bonds in favour of Navneet, which was dispatched at her recorded address, but the same returned by postal authorities as undelivered.              

         It has also been submitted that ARS bond certificate got matured on 1.4.2009. The specified undertaking of the Unit Trust of India had circulated Public Notice in major national newspapers dated 22.1.2009 (Ann.D) announcing and intimating the maturity of ARS Bonds w.e.f. 1.4.2009 and that these bonds cease to exist from 1.4.2009 and no interest is payable after 1.4.2009.  It is stated that the correspondence of father of complainant were suitably replied vide letter dated 24.8.2017 and 26.2.2009 (Ann.E), but the complainant instead of sending the procedural requirements, has resorted to file complaint.  It has also been submitted that the Opposite Party is ready to release the redemption proceeds of Rs.7691.70 “At Par” with other investors, together with 6.60% interest of bonds amounting to Rs.2508/- to holder Navneet.  It is further submitted that the complainant is entitled to the amount as due at the time of termination of the scheme on surrender of membership advice, attested signature, bank particulars and proof of identity and address. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by Opposite Party.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The averments set-out in the complaint filed by the complainant stating that in the year 1998, her father on being approached and convinced by the representative of the OPs, opted for ‘Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan-II’ in her favour, which is an exclusive plan for the benefit of the women, claiming that investment made in the plan would grow 14 times in 20 years, are well established by documents corroborating the same.

 

7]       Ann.C-1 appended with the complaint well describes that an amount of Rs.3500/- vide Cheque No.353742, dated 15.4.1998 was invested through the agent of OPs in the above mentioned investment plan of the OPs i.e. ‘Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan (II)’.  As per the document Ann.C-1, it is well proved on record that said – Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan-II – Membership No.0008705 consist of 350 Units (face value of Rs.10/- per unit) having date of maturity as 15.4.2018 being 20 years from the start of Plan/Scheme, has been given in favour of the complainant by the OPs. It is well proved by the complainant that the maturity amount as per the plan could have been claimed either once 20 years lock-in period get completed or at the time of attaining the age of 18 years, whichever is earlier as opted by the holder of the plan. Also as per the terms & conditions of the membership certificate, an option is given that once the child (holder of the certificate) attains the age of 18 years, then the maturity amount could be withdrawn. Further Ann.C-2 transpires that on 9.8.2017, after the complainant attained majority, the OPs were approached for withdrawal of dues under the plan. 

 

         It is so proved on record that no payment was made despite request made on 9.8.2017 (Ann.C-2), so the complainant on having completed 20 years lock-in period under the plan, which get completed on 15.4.2018, again approached the OPs on 11.2.2019    (Ann.C-3), but again the OPs had not paid a single penny to the complainant, which in our opinion tantamounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice.

 

8]       The ld.Counsel for Opposite Parties in defence, argued that ‘Raj Lakshmi Unit plan-II’ i.e. Plan in question was launched in the year 1994 and a Unit Membership Certificate was issued in favour of the investor i.e. complainant.  Further claimed that due to adverse conditions in the investment sector, UTI as per the provisions in the Scheme decided to foreclose the scheme along with some other schemes and a Public Notice was published in Indian Express, Chandigarh Edition dated 24.12.2003.  Further claimed that under the scheme, option was given to Unit Holders either to get the redemption proceeds or to invest the same in Govt. of India ARS Bonds. Claimed further that at the end of the lock-in period of the Bonds, a Public Notice was issued reminding the Bond Holders about maturity date and other relevant information. 

 

         It has also been claimed by the OPs that before the date of said termination of the scheme in question, the OPs had also served individual notices on 15.12.2003 to all unit holders under RUP-II Scheme giving them option either to opt for payment of the redemption proceeds or for conversion of the redemption proceeds into 6.60% tradable tax free Bonds guaranteed by Government of India. Further vehemently reiterated that OPs have also circulated public notice in all major national newspapers including ‘Times of India’ and ‘The Indian Express’, Chandigarh edition publication dated 24.12.2003, announcing and intimating the foreclosure of a number of Assured Return Schemes including the RUP-II (plan in question) with effect from April 1, 2004 and wherein it was specified a time schedule for exercise of options besides giving other details for converting the units under the respective scheme into tax free bonds guaranteed by the Government of India.  It has further been claimed by the OPs that it was mentioned in the said notices that in case the option form is not received by February 16, 2004, it would be presumed that the Unit holder has consented to convert the redemption proceeds into 6.60%  Tax Free Tradable ARS Bonds.  Claimed further that since no option form was received from the complainant, the terminal proceeds of outstanding units at the time of foreclosure against said RUP-II certificate amounting Rs.7691.70 was divided by the face value of a bond i.e. Rs.100/- and converted in default option into Government of India Tradable Tax Free Bonds Certificate No.32275541 bearing Id No.167275745 for 76 bonds in favour of Navneet which get dispatched at her recorded address.  Claimed that the same was returned by the postal authorities as undelivered.  Claimed further that the intimation letters were sent in normal course for confirming the postal address of complainant enabling re-dispatch of bond certificate but no response was received.  Claimed that the complainant herself has failed to inform her change of address. 

         It has further been submitted that ARS bond certificate get matured on 1.4.2009 & the ‘specified undertaking’ of the Unit Trust of India circulated Public Notice in major national newspapers dated 22.1.2009 marked and enclosed as Ann.D announcing and intimating the maturity of ARS Bonds w.e.f. 1.4.2009, wherein bond holders were notified procedure for maturity.  It has also claimed to be notified that these bonds cease to exist from 1.4.2009 and no interest is payable after 1.4.2009.  It has also been submitted that the correspondence of father of complainant were suitably replied vide letters dated 24.8.2017 and 26.2.2019, however, the complainant instead of sending the procedural requirement as prescribed by the OPs & has resorted to file the complaint.  It is further submitted that the OPs are ready to release the redemption proceeds of Rs.7691.70 “At Par” with other investors, together with 6.60% interest of bond amounting to Rs.2508/- to holder Navneet.

 

9]       We have gone through the provisions of the plan/scheme of OPs in question as well its being terminated in the year 2004 and the options so given to the unit holders vide various public notices (copies of the same are placed on record).  In the given scenario, it has been observed that the complainant could not be given the full benefit of the scheme as committed while opting for the same in the year 1998 being the lock-in period of 20 years or till attaining the age of 18 years, whichever is earlier; since the plan/scheme in question has been withdrawn in between after facing adverse market conditions by the OP Company, which as per the provisions of the scheme they were well within their right to do so.  But, at the same time, they were under bounden duty to serve a notice of 3 months to the Member/unit holder individually about the termination of the policy and about further course to be followed by the unit holders.  It is well clarified that as per Gazette Notification dated 27.8.1994, so placed on record by the Opposite Party as Ann.OP-1 (Page-7), wherein under Clause XII, the following has been stipulated:-

“XIII. TERMINATION OF THE SCHEME AND THE PLAN MADE THEREUNDER:

The Scheme and the Plan made thereunder may if circumstances so prevail not being in the interest of the members or the Trust be terminated by giving a notice of three months to the members………

 

         The mandate as given in the above term has not been followed by the OPs as they failed to place on record any document addressing the complainant about the termination of the scheme in question. Public notice though is a constructive notice but the specific requirement under the scheme cannot be ignored, which the OPs had not adhered to in the present complaint. We found the Opposite Parties guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant not only that failed to give a personal notice as mandated in the Plan, but they also have failed to intimate the complainant individually when the 76 bonds issued in favour of the complainant after having adjusted the redemption proceeds in the year 2004, get matured.   The letters dated 9.8.2017 & 11.2.2019 (Ann.C-2 & C-3) very cogently establish that the complainant being Member under the Plan/scheme in question was not intimated as per the provisions of the plan.  Though the Opposite Parties in their reply claimed that they served individual notices on 15.12.2003 to all unit holders under Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan-II/RUP-II’’ giving them option either to opt for payment of the terminal proceeds or for conversion of the terminal proceeds into 6.6% tradable tax free Bonds guaranteed by Government of India, but nothing of that sort has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties in document form.  In our considered opinion, the inaction on the part of the OPs forced the complainant to file the present complaint.  This avoidable botheration given to the complainant added to the mental sufferance besides financial harassment.

 

         It can well be gathered from the letter dated 26.2.2019 (Ann.CW4) issued by Opposite Parties during the pendency of the present complaint. This letter has been dispatched and received at the address which is the same address which the father of the complainant supplied to OPs while opting the Plan in question.  From this, it can safely be said that the plea taken by the Opposite Parties that the Bond Certificate dispatched to the unit holder/complainant at the registered address received undelivered from postal authorities, is totally false and thus rejected.

         The contents of the said letter are relevant to be reproduced, which are as under:-

“This has reference to your letter received on 13.02.2019 regarding the investment details under RUP 94(II) scheme.  In this regard we wish to inform you that with the given copy of acknowledge receipt we have found the RUP 94(II) certificate 406980070000840 in the name of NAVNEET.  Further the units under the said RUP 94(II) certificate have been converted into ARS bond 32275541 for 76 bonds under ID No.167275745.  The said bond certificate was dispatched to unit holder’s registered address.

However, the same is returned to us as undelivered by the postal authorities.  To release payment kindly forward the RUP certificate or any other investment proof and enclosed redemption form duly filled in all respect and signed by unit holder NAVNEET.  Signature of unit holder should be attested by bank manager under his official seal mentioning details such as name, employee code & designation.  Also submit the self attested copy of photo Id proof, address proof, bank statement or cancelled cheque leaf.”

 

 

10]      As per contents of the above letter, it is now very well clear that the complainant is entitled for the due proceeds only after submitting all the documents, as required.  It has further been observed that it is only vide filing of the present complaint that things have been made clear by the OPs for which the complainant was not made aware despite having approached twice by the complainant before filing of the present complaint.  This further amounts to rendering of deficient services on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

11]      Further observed that the Opposite Parties are ready to release the redemption proceeds of Rs.7691.70 together with 6.60% interest of bond amounting to Rs.2508/- to holder Navneet i.e. complainant and no interest is payable after 1.4.2009 on the said amount.   It is only due to inaction of the OPs, that the amount kept lying with the OPs without fetching any interest since 1.4.2009 causing financial loss to the complainant, apart from mental agony and harassment to her, which in our opinion should be compensated appropriately by the Opposite Parties. 

 

12]      From the entire facts & circumstances of the case, discussed and findings, as made in the preceding paragraphs, it is proved that the Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 remained grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 & 2 with following directions:-

         

1. To pay all the dues payable to the complainant under the plan in question;

 

2. To pay a compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing immense mental agony, harassment due to their deficient act;

 

c)  To pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-;

 

         The complainant shall furnish all requisite documents, as desired by the OPs, for release of the amount against the bond in question, as has also been detailed in Para No.8(viii) of reply.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order as well as documents from the side of complainant, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from the above relief.   

 

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

4^th February, 2020                                                         Sd/-  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER