- Aggrieved by the findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short, the State Commission), the Opposite Parties (Petitioners herein) filed the present Revision Petition No. 541 of 2019 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) in District Forum was allowed with the direction to pay the balance amount of Rs. 56,400/- as per the Scheme and to further pay Rs. 40,000/- in total on account of deficiency in service, mental agony etc. and cost of litigation.
- Aggrieved by this Order dated 01.03.2018 of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties filed Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 31.12.2018, dismissed the Appeal.
- As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I do not find it relevant to reiterate the same.
- I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record.
- The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are bad in law in as much as its Scheme, in which the Respondent had invested for 500 Units was closed on 31.03.2004 as per the procedure laid down in the Scheme, giving option to either collect the money or to take the bond. In this case, money was not collected and a bond was issued. Much later, the Respondent asked for settlement of the investment in the original Scheme and certain amount was paid as per the amount entitled. The Respondent should have gone through the gazette notification dated 01.07.1994, which in clause 13, provided for the termination of the Scheme. The termination was also published in certain newspapers. The learned Counsel submitted that whatever amount that was due has already been paid to the Respondent and therefore, the Revision Petition may be allowed and the Complaint dismissed.
- The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that the Scheme was to mature by the year 2016. It was around this time that he came to know about closure of the Scheme and that he was not given any notice about the same and the amount for 500 units was lying with the Petitioner since 1995. Much lesser amount totalling Rs. 18,152.71 only was credited in the account of the Respondent and that too only on 01.12.2016. Keeping this amount from 1995 till 2016 is a deficiency of service even if the Scheme was closed prematurely, the amount should have been refunded much earlier.
- The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such matters have been already adjudicated in the past and this Commission has given two Orders upholding the Petitioner’s case of terminating the Scheme. The two Orders of this Commission are in Revision Petition No. 1233 of 2014, Rama Walia vs. U.T.I. Technology Services Ltd. & Anr., dated 11.04.2016 and Revision Petition No. 2828 of 2007, Vijay Shakti & Anr. Vs. UTI & Ors., dated 22.11.2011, where the action of the Petitioner foreclosing the Scheme was upheld. Therefore, the question of any illegality in the termination of the Scheme by the Petitioner does not arise. The only issue remaining is whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioners in not having communicated the closure of the Scheme and the option to either exit out of the Scheme or opt for a bond to the Respondent. In this particular case, it appears that the Respondent was not intimated about exercise of such option though, there was paper publication to this effect. Evidently, the fact of having made the paper publication mitigates against the deficiency of service against the Petitioner. While holding the termination valid, the fact that the money was kept even beyond the conversion of the units into ARS bonds, which also matured in April 2009 till the Petitioner made a request for payment in 2016 constitutes a deficiency of service. The maturity amount of the bonds were only refunded in 2016 when the Respondent wanted to get the maturity amount of the original Units. In my opinion, the withholding of the amount by the Petitioner constitutes a deficiency of service and therefore, a cost requires to be paid.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. However, the Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 56,400/- as compensation to the Respondent within six weeks of this Order, failing which the same shall be paid with 9% rate of interest from the date of this Order.
| |
