Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/118/2012

Prerana Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zonal Manager (UTI Investor Services Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S. Mishra

25 May 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR

 

C.C. No.118 of 2012

 

      Prerana Agrawal

      Aged about 21 years,

      D/o- late Madan Mohan Agrawal

      C/o-Gyan Prakash Agrawal,

      Resident of Subanpuria Building,

      P.O./P.S. Khetrajpur,

      Dist-Sambalpur                                                ……………… Petitioner

                            

-VERSUS –

 

1. Zonal Manager, UTI Investor Services Limited,

No.9, B.T.M. Sarani (Opp. India Tea Board),

Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001.

 

2. Miss Vaishali Naik, (Asst. Vice President),

UTI Technology Service Ltd.,

Plot NO.3, Sector-II, CBD, Belapur,

Navi Mumbai-400614.

3. Mr. Swadesh Biswal,

(Chief Manager, UTI Technology Services Ltd., Western Orissa)

•  
•  …………….. Opp. Parties

 

For Complainant                 : Sri. S. Mishra, A. Meher and associates

For O.P.s No.1,2 &3 : Sri A.K Nayak

PRESENT:-  SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER

                

Date of Order:25/05/2018

 

Sri. K. D. Dash, Member

 

1. One Prerana Agrawal calls in question here in this complainant case no.118/2012 alleging  deficiency in  service and playing unfair  trade  practice with the complainant while dealing with in releasing the substantial amount by the O.P’s in connection with the amount invested on dtd. 31.05.1995 on purchasing 1200 units under the “CHILDREN’S GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986 which was foreclosed on dt.31.03.2004 instead of its scheduled date of maturity that actually fell to/on dt.04.10.2012.
2. It is felt necessary to go through the factual aspects of the case for proper appreciation of the matter and  it runs as follows.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, Gyanprakash Agrawal,  the elder father of the petitioner on dt. 31.05.1995 purchased 1200 units of “CHILDREN’s GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986” in the name of the petitioner, as she was minor then, under the scheme floated by unit Trust of India. The Investment was made by the elder father of the petitioner with a hope that the amount invested will be of a great help for the future use, benefit and marriage of the petitioner. A certificate bearing No.202950030003361 dt. 31.05.1995 was issued by M/s. Unit Trust of India in favour of the petitioner, c/o. Gyanprakash Agrawal, Subanpuria Building, Khetrajpur, Sambalpur which was due for mature on 04.10.2012.
4. That the scheme “CHILDREN’S GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986” was foreclosed on 31.03.2004 by the O.P. company and investors were given option either to redeem their holding or switch over to any other scheme of UTI Mutual Fund.
5. That after getting the aforesaid offer, the elder father of the petitioner as natural guardian of the petitioner opted for redemption and requested to despatch the redemption cheque, drawn on the account of the petitioner in Indian Overseas Bank, Sambalpur branch. The application was sent through registered post with AD on 06.02.2004. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of the foreclosure of the scheme, the petitioner was entitled to receive a sum of         Rs. 3,66,552.35 from the O.P. M/s.Unit Trust of India.
6. That after submitting the offer for redemption, the petitioner was eagerly waiting to receive the redemption cheque from the O.P. company.
7. That when the petitioner did not receive the redemption cheque, her elder father made a communication with  O.P. No. 1 about the payment of the foreclosure proceeds.
8. That in response to it the O.P. replies that the redemption  cheque were issued and dispatched in the address given by the petitioner’s elder father duly endorsing the bank particulars as SB Account No. 6209,  Indian Overseas Bank, Sambalpur  branch.
9. That after receiving the aforesaid reply the elder father of the petitioner asked the O.Ps to furnish the detail particulars of the mode of despatch of the cheque in favour of the petitioner but the O.Ps could not furnish the same.
10. That the petitioner and her natural guardian-elder father were all through available in the address furnished by them and hence they have the reasons to believe that redemption cheque shown to have been despatched by the O.P. was never despatched or might have been despatched in a wrong address by the O.P. for which the O.Ps are solely responsible for it.
11. That the petitioners elder father made several  correspondences  in between 2004 to 2012, each time requesting  the O.P. for making payment of the foreclosure proceeds  to the petitioner. He made request to the O.Ps to issue the  redemption cheque with interest for the delayed period.
12. That the O.P. did not take any action, slept over the matter and each time offered a stereotype reply as stated herein above.
13. That after making protracted correspondences and requests for payment of the foreclosure proceeds with upto date interest for delayed period, the O.P. company finally in their letter dt. 23.01.2012 written to Gyanprakash Agrawal, advised that since the petitioner already attained majority, she may submit fresh request letter duly signed by her and her signature duly attested by Bank Manager under the official seal, mentioning name, designation, employee code of the attesting person.
14. That accordingly the petitioner submitted a fresh request letter complying the aforesaid direction of the O.P. calculating the interest @18% for the delayed period claiming an amount of Rs.8,78,115/- and asking the O.P.  to make the payment through account payee redemption cheque in the saving account of the petitioner maintained in  Indian Overseas Bank, Sambalpur branch, vide letter  dt. 17.07.2012.
15. That the petitioner also wrote a separate letter vide letter dt. 17.07.2012 to the O.P. requesting the O.P. to release   the matured foreclosure proceeds within 15 days of the receipt of the said communication making it clear that nonpayment of the said amount within the stipulated period shall make the O.P further liable for payment of damages @ 18 % over and above the amount of Rs. 8,78,115/-
16. That in spite of the letter dt. 17.07.2012, the O.P. did not release the foreclosure proceeds under the “CHILDREN’S GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986” scheme. The O.P. even did not respond to it and that became  the cause for the complainant resorting the  matter in the instant complaint for redressal of the issue.

 

17. The case is kleenly  contested from the side of the O.P’s.

We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties, gone through the documents extended from their side and have also perused the W.S. submitted from the side of the O.P’s.

 

18. Reiterating the entire contentions let out in the complaint case,  the Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the  case at hand is well maintainable under the provisions  of law and the complainant has got a  legitimate right in asking for her own money deposited under the prescribed  scheme on its ceisure and after exercising the rights as per  the guidelines of the U.T.I. authorities made therefore.  The Learned Counsel urged that, though it was  said from the side of the O.P’s that the amount so due and claimed that amounted to             Rs. 3,66,552.35 (Rupees three lakhs sixty-six thousand five hundred  fifty-two and thirty five paise) only, was sent to the complainant’s elder father through a redemption cheque was  returned  back without receiving  the same was actually  not a fact  and he was staying very well in the place of address given therefor. It is contented that, even though thereafter several correspondences  over the issue were made, no reply came from the side of the U.T.I and the matter  remained as such till to date  without coming over the problem and disbursement of the actual payment over due on it.  The Learned Counsel narrated such an action of the O.P’s as unfortunate and detrimental to the interest of the beneficiary –complainant. The Learned counsel too named such an inaction of the O.P’s as arbitrary and committing thereby deficiency in service and playing unfair practice with her.

Thus, the relief sought for by the complainant in the case is as follows.

 

1. the O.P. be directed  to pay the matured amount with interest calculated till March’2012 comes to Rs. 8,78,115/- (Rupees eight lakhs seventy eight thousand one hundred fifteen only);
2. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) as compensation to the petitioner;
3. to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards harassment and mental agony suffered by the petitioner ; &
4. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of the proceeding ;

 

19. Countering such averments of the complainant, the Learned Counsel for the O.P’s inter-alia submitted that the case is not maintainable under the law being filed after the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, it was stressed upon by the  Learned counsel to outrightly reject  the complaint  on this ground alone. In this connection the O.P’s rely on a decision of dt. 02.02.2010 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Mahinder Sharma Vrs Unit Trust of India and others. The Learned Counsel  further  submitted that after foreclosure of the “CHILDREN’s GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986” on dt. 31.03.2004, the O.P  company has provided options to the investors either to redeem their holding or switch over to any others scheme of U.T.I. Mutual Funds and accordingly after exercising of the option by the elder father of the complainant, necessary redemption cheque was given by the O.P. No. 1 and send to him but was returned back with the endorsement  of the postal authorities as ‘‘addressee not found’’  and therefore the O.P. company has not committed any deficiency in  its service or adopted any unfair trade  practice. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the O.P’s prays to dismiss the case.
20. On hearing both the sides and going through all the connected papers/ documents / correspondences, at its outset we found that  so far the purchase of 1200 units of “CHILDREN’s GIFT GROWTH FUND-1986” on dated 31.05.1995 by Gyanprakash Agrawal (the elder father of the Complainant while she was minor) under the certificate  No.  202950030003361 dt. 31.05.95, the subsequent foreclosure of the said scheme by the U.T.I  on dtd. 30.03.04, the option provided to the investors thereafter for the same either to redeem their holding or switch over to any other scheme of U.T.I  Mutual Fund,  the option provided therefor  by Gyanprakash Agrawal sending the same to the authority by Regd. Post with  A.D.  on dt. 06.02.2004, the issual of redemption  cheque by (O.P. No. 1) U.T.I under the  proper account of Indian Overseas Bank as obtained from the claimant and returning back of the same to the sender-U.T.I etc. are concerned, we don’t find any dispute  to such facts which are too admitted by both the parties.  It is also evident that after non-payment of the amount by the U.T.I., there exists nos. of correspondences from the side of the complainant demanding the amount due over the matter and the non-action thereafter it by the U.T.I in releasing the money even without any further correspondences and intimation to the complainant over the same.
21. On careful consideration of the matter first of all , so far as the issue of cause of action, limitation and maintainability of the case is concerned, it is normally  an aggrieved Consumer usually who  approaches the Consumer forum when he has a cause of action to raise  such  dispute. But cause of action is not defined in any legislation. The court has to necessarily adjudicate the matter basing on the  cause of action only.  As cause of action is a bundle of facts, the fact that has given to   raise to action  against other party  is called cause of action basing on the date of occurrence on that particular fact which gives a right to the complainant to sue the other party, the period of  limitation is computed.  Some causes of action arise only for once whereas, some are recurring causes of action and some are continuous causes of action.  It is therefore very much  necessary  for us in the prevailing circumstance of the case to identify/short out  the  appropriate period of cause of action to decide the matter. As we see in the case at hand there remained different points of time for several causes of action beginning right from dt. 31.05.95 when the bond was emerged and it has come across witnessing a radical changes   thereon before time in the year 2004 on  dt. 31.03.2004  when it was foreclosed. Further, it is observed that option was given, the redemption cheque was issued from U.T.I. but returned back undelivered, also thereafter different correspondences were made from the side of the complainant  and the matter still remained unsolved without  arriving to any  final solution / conclusion. And here, each action at intervals/ at different point of time gives birth to a fresh cause of action.  In   other words  when a party has got  an undoubted right and it is infringed, the very said infringement itself germinates a cause made liable for action.  So necessarily in the present case the matter is perverted under the continuous cause of action  basing/depending on which the limitation is computed and such a principle under its legal pursuit cannot be captioned.  In this regard the decision dt. 02.02.2010 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission and relied upon by the O.P’s is not applicable to this case as the facts in this case differs from that of the subject matter of that case.  Thus, we hold that the matter is supported with sufficient cause and justification in filing   of the case in the year 2012 and the same is treated as within time.
22. As regards the merit of the case is concerned we find no dispute so far as it relates to the facts and happenings of the case and rather on the other hand it is evident on the face of the records that the allegation so raised by the complainant comes as but true and is not denied by the O.P’s except the very claim on demanding the interest accrued over the unpaid principal amount that was due after the closure of the scheme and as shown in the redemption cheques.  In our view when the money was sent through four nos. of redemption cheques showing/for  an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only  each in three cheques and Rs. 66,552.35 (Rupees sixty six thousand five hundred fifty two and thirty five paise) only in another cheque, a total amount thereby of       Rs. 3,66,555.35 (Rupees three lakhs sixty six thousand five hundred fifty five and thirty five paise) only  to the complainant and returned back as undelivered, it remained thereafter all along with  the U.T.I. & is yet to be paid. So, obviously when the money was not disbursed to the complainant and remained with the purse/treasury of the U.T.I., then definitely the institution concerned is liable to pay the interest over the said principal amount of Rs. 3,64,552.35 (Rupees three lakhs sixty four thousand five hundred fifty two and thirty five paise) only  from the date of 01.04.2004. We find  no such reasoning for such a statement in  negativity of the O.P’s which finds  having no such reasonings therefor and that is why it warrants us to reach to such a conclusion as mentioned above.
23.  In the result the complaint case is allowed. 
24. The O.P’s- U.T.I. authorities are liable for deficiency in service and are hereby directed to clear up the dues and pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,66,555.35 (Rupees three lakhs sixty-six thousand five hundred  fifty five and thirty five paise) only with interest @ 6% (Six) per annum  right  from dtd. 01.04.2004 to the complainant.  That apart, the O.P’s-U.T.I authorities are also directed to pay the complainant, the litigation charge of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only along with the aforesaid payment within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which they will be liable to pay the decretal amount with interest @ 9% (nine) per annum   from the date of order till the date of actual payment.

 

     

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                      Sd/-                                                                               SHRI A.P.MUND

         SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.                                           PRESIDENT.                                                                      .

                      Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

         SHRI K.D.DASH.  Member    I agree.                             Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                                                                               PRESIDENT