Date of Filing:13.05.2009<br /> Date of Order:24.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1105 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Smt. N. Pushpa,<br /> D/o A.M. Narayanaswamy,<br /> W/o Mohankumar,<br /> R/at Hancharahalli,<br /> Bidrahalli Hobli,<br /> Bangalore East Taluk. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Unit Trust of India,<br /> No.1, I Floor, E-One Street,<br /> Old Madras Road,<br /> Opp. Blue Chip Computers,<br /> Ulsoor, Bangalore,<br /> Rep: by its Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, as per the scheme in the name and style “Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme” introduced by the opposite party the complainant purchased 500 units with view to get a fund at the marriageable age. The complainant was minor during 1993 and hence her father deposited Rs.5,000/- on 16/04/1993 with the opposite party. The opposite party issued a bond No. R933037026108 in the name of complainant. As per the said bond the bond will be matured on 16/04/2009, on maturity the opposite party has to pay Rs.55.000/- to the complainant being the maturity value of the bond. On maturity of the bond, the complainant approached the opposite party. The opposite party admitted that the bond was matured on 16/04/2009 and issued investor query form and later they told that will pay only Rs. 15,323.05/- and not Rs. 50,000/-. The same was protested and refused to accept Rs. 15,323.05/- in place of Rs. 55,000/-. On failure of the opposite party to pay the full maturity amount as agreed, the complainant and her father suffered huge loss. Hence, this complaint for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.55,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and submitted defence version stating that the Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme 1992 is one such plan launched by the Trust and it is subject to its scheme provisions of the said scheme with its modification carried out from time to time. As per the provisions of the Repealing Act, the management of the Scheme mentioned in Schedule-I of the Act which includes the subject plan, vests with the Specified Undertaking. The complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging non-receipt of redemption proceeds against unit certificate No.R933037026108 for 500 units under RUS’92 and thereby for directing the opposite parties to pay the redemption amount of Rs. 55,000/- as per the assurance under the given Bond given with interest to the complainant. The complainant suppressed the material facts that she had failed to apply for redemption proceeds in time. She was negligent towards her duty and for her negligence, she can not claim interest or costs from the opposite party. The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and resorted to file this vexatious complaint. Hence, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complaint filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on <br /> the part of opposite party?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The opposite party has produced the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No.4457/2000 decided on 04/09/2001. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioners for seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the UTI and terminating the Rajalakshmi Scheme-1992 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and being violative of principle of promissory estoppel. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the termination of the scheme was just and fair decision by the UTI and accordingly Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench. Against that order the petitioners went up to Supreme Court of India and the special new petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by the order dated 08/07/2002. The copy of the SLP is also produced by the opposite party. The opposite party has also produced the judgment copy of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 18555 connected with other petitions of 2000 decided on 16/04/2001. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court also dismissed the writ petitions. This judgment is also in respect of Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme 1992 and the steps taken by the UTI to terminate the scheme with effect from 01/10/2000 was held valid and the relief sought by the petitioners for seeking writ of mandamus against the UTI came to be dismissed. Therefore, the present complaint filed before this Forum is also in respect of Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme. The complainant is not entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.55,000/- because the UTI had issued Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme Certificate subject to the provisions of Unit Trust of India 1963. The opposite party in this case has clearly come forward for payment of Rs.15,323/- to the complainant as a termination amount. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for that amount under the Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme Certificate. The opposite party can be directed to pay Rs. 15,323/- to the complainant Smt. N. Pushpa since she has attended the age of majority under the certificate N. Pushpa was the unit holder. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the amount from UTI. The UTI shall take immediate steps in giving the amount of Rs. 15,323/- to the complainant. The date of maturity of the certificate was 16/04/2009. Therefore, from that date till payment the UTI shall pay interest on the maturity value of Rs.15,323/- as per rules. With this observation, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party UTI is directed to pay Rs. 15,323/-, to the complainant along with admissible interest on that amount from 17/04/2009 till payment/realisation. The UTI is directed to comply the order within 4 weeks from the date of this order. The amount shall be paid to the complainant directly by way of cheque/bankers pay order with intimation to this Forum.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> rhr.,