BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 6th December 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HONBLE MEMBER
COMMON ORDERS IN
C.C.No.72/2014 AND C.C.No.73/2014
(Admitted on 25.02.2014)
In C.C.No.72/2014
1. Mr. Niranjan Das Bhandary,
S/o Late M. Sanjeeva Bhandary,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Ms. Ashitha,
Aged about 21 years,
D/o Niranjan Das Bhandary
Both are R/at Shiva Kripa, Kammaje,
Bellur post, Via Jodu Marga,
Bantwal Taluk.
IN C.C.No.73/2014
1. Mr. Niranjan Das Bhandary,
S/o Late M. Sanjeeva Bhandary,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Ms. Arpitha
Aged about 21 years,
D/o Niranjan Das Bhandary
Both are R/at Shiva Kripa, Kammaje,
Bellur post, Via Jodu Marga,
Bantwal Taluk.
….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: NBPR)
VERSUS
1. UTI Technologies Services Ltd.,
F 20, Souza Arcade,
Opp. Jyothi Talkies,
Balmatta Road,
Mangalore 1.
Represented By its Branch Manager.
2. UTI Technology and Services Ltd.,
(Previously known as UTI
Technology Services)
UTI Tower, Plot No.3,
Sector 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400614,
Represented By its Manager.
….............OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Sri KPVR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
Both these cases are in suited by the same first complainant with two different daughters as complainant No. 2 against common opponent. The grounds urged in these cases are identical. Common evidence of record in 73/2014 by this common order both cases are being disposed off.
The grounds urged by the complainant are complainant No.1 as per the request an agent of opposite party purchased units issued by opposite party under Raja Lakshmi Unit Scheme. The details are of complainant No. 2 in 72/2014 1,100 units of Rs.10/ each date of maturity on 19.7.2012 and maturity amount is Rs.2,31,000/ In the respects of complainant No. 2 in 73/2014 1,000 units of face value of Rs.100/ with date of maturity 19.7.2012 with maturity amount of Rs.2,10,000/. It is alleged that the despite demands and legal notice opposite party did not pay the maturity amount. Contending greater inconveniences loss and mental agony seeks direction to opposite party in both cases to pay the maturity amounts and compensation of Rs.50,000/ each.
II. Opposite party in both cases raised identical grounds in the written version. Under Section 19 and 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act 1963 Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme was terminated with the effect from 30.9.2000 in accordance of provision of the scheme. UTI had appointed the M/s UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as UTI ITSL) as the Registrar and Transfer Agent of the scheme. The said Act stood repealed by an Act of Parliament known as Unit Trust of India transfer undertaking repeal Act 2002 under which the UTI was stood bifurcated, interalia one Administrator of specified undertaking of UTI and the UTI Trust company Private Limited. As per the repealing act the management of the subject of scheme and also the scheme mentioned stood transferred and vested with the Administrator of the specified undertaking of UTI.
2. It is further contended the complainants are entitled for any of the reliefs claimed and there is no deficiency in service. The unit holders in both cases is entitled to get responds to proceed in accordance with provision of the plan and as per her entire for with all others of the investors of the scheme. Under section of C P Act the complainants ought to have to filed a claim within 2 years from the date of termination of the scheme on 30.9.2000. Hence the complaint filed is barred by time.
3. Opposite party further claims for relief to various reported judgment of NC and State Forums and also Apex Court held that the complaints of this nature are not maintainable. The entitlement of the complainants as per the records till the date of termination of the scheme is mention and cheques were also issued. As such seeks dismissal of the complaints.
4. In support of the above complainant Mr. Niranjan Das Bhandary filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C.3 in CC. No.72/2014 and Ex.C1 to C3 in CC.No.73/2014 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Ms. Prajitha P. V, Occupation Branch Manager (Rw1) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R14 in CC. No.72/2014 and Ex.R1 to R14 in CC.No.73/2014 detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether there is consumer dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No.(iii): Barred by time
Point No.(iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i) The complainants in both cases claimed complainant No.1 purchased the units in the name of his two Lakshmi Unit Scheme the units purchased as claimed and the date of maturity is not disputed by opposite party. Opposite party disputed liability on the ground the scheme was terminated in September 2000 itself. As such there is rival contention living the person dispute between the complainants the consumers and the opposite party the service provider. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative in both cases.
POINT NO.(ii): In both cases the Raja Lakshmi Unit Scheme was closed and an Administrator was appointed and UTI technology Service Limited was established by an Act of parliament is not disputed by the complainants. Under the said enactment Raja Lakshmi Unit Scheme was terminated and the unit holders were offered the amounts and wide publications were taken out in news papers and notices were also send. It is the claim made by the opposite party the similar contentions arises in the earlier cases of similar nature under the same scheme reached up to the Supreme Court of India and also various State Forums and National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ended in favour of the contention raised by opposite party in these two cases. It is not necessary for us to go in detail as its findings. In revision petition of 2828/2007 National Consumer Redressal Forum New Delhi by order dated 22nd November 2011 in identical facts taken a stand complaint is not maintainable. As such there is no reason to form a different opinion on identical circumstances in respect of the present two cases. Further it is to be noted that the scheme having come to an end in 30.9.2010 the claim putforth in 2014 as rightly pointed out by opposite party is hopelessly barred by time. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative in both cases against complainants.
POINT No.3: It is not essential for as to go into these aspects having held the cases on question of limitation against complainants. Suffice to mention in both cases opposite parties issued cheque for Rs.37,559/ in complaint No. 72/2014 and for Rs.34,253/ in 73/2014 these cheques dated 28.4.2014 were not enchased by the complainant. It is open to the complainants to approach opposite party to issue fresh cheques to enable collection of amounts due under the scheme.
The learned counsel for complainants produced copy of an earlier order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mangalore in a similar cases allowed complaint to the extent of the amount due as per the statement of the opposite party. However this Forum is not bound by the order passed in earlier proceedings. As such we answer point no.3 in the negative in both cases.
POINTS No. (iv): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The Complaint is dismissed.
Keep original order in CC.72/2014 and a true copy of in CC.73/2014.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 Dictated by president directly to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 6th December 2016)
| MEMBER (SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. | | PRESIDENT (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. |
| |
ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.72/2014
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Mr. Niranjan Das Bhandary
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex.C1: The certificate issued by the opposite party
Ex.C2: The office copy of the legal notice dated 13.08.2012
Ex.C3: The Acknowledgement
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Ms. Prajitha P. V, Occupation Branch Manager
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: : Authorization letter
Ex.R2: 2.7.2001 : Order copy of Honble M.P. State Commission Dispute Redressal Commission. Bhopal
Ex.R3: 22.11.2011 : Order copy of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case No.2828/2007
Ex.R4: 03.04.2012 : Order copy of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case No.3956/2011
Ex.R5: : Specimen copy of Brochure
Ex.R6: : Application and Brochure
Ex.R7: 17.04.1993 : Gazette Notification of offer documents
Ex.R8: : various High Court orders
Ex.R9: : Apex Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 4320/2002
Ex.R10: : Letters dated 20.8.2000 of opposite party
Ex.R11: : Bulletins October 2001
Ex.R12: : Copy of the order passed by this Forum in CC No. 333/2010 and another CDRF case No.330/2011 at Bangalore
Ex.R13: 21.09.2011 : Intimation letters to unit holder
Ex.R14: 29.02.2012 : Intimation letters to unit holder
ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.73/2014
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Mr. Niranjan Das Bhandary
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex.C1: The certificate issued by the opposite party
Ex.C2: The office copy of the legal notice dated 13.08.2012
Ex.C3: The Acknowledgement
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Ms. Prajitha P. V, Occupation Branch Manager
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: : Authorization letter
Ex.R2: 2.7.2001 : Order copy of Hon’ble M.P. State Commission Dispute Redressal Commission. Bhopal
Ex.R3: 22.11.2011 : Order copy of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case No.2828/2007
Ex.R4: 03.04.2012 : Order copy of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case No.3956/2011
Ex.R5: 20.08.2000 : Intimation letter addressed to all unit holders
Ex.R6: : Application and Brochure
Ex.R7: 17.04.1993 : Gazette Notification
Ex.R8: : various High Court orders
Ex.R9: : Apex Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 4320/2002
Ex.R10: : Bulletins October 2001
Ex.R11: 14.09.2000 : Newspaper advertisement0p
Ex.R12: : Copy of the order passed by this Forum in CC No. 333/2010 and another CDRF case No.330/2011 at Bangalore
Ex.R13: 21.09.2011 : Intimation letters to unit holder
Ex.R14: 29.02.2012 : Intimation letters to unit holder
Dated: 06.12.2016 PRESIDENT
