The complainants  Nagendra  Mohan Mishra  and Namita Ranjan   have filed this complaint petition  against   chief representative, UTI New market Sariyaganj  and 3 others for realization  of Rs. 13000/- with value of share at the present  rate, with 18 % p.a. interest  and Rs. 10,000/-  as litigation cost.

The brief, facts  of the case is that on 29-12-1992 the complainant  entrusted  Rs. 13,000/- to UTI by draft No.- 0481869 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,  Branch Muzaffarpur for issuance of Unit certificate in the name of his minor daughter  Namita Ranjan in the scheme of ‘Raj Lakshmi’ scheme  and received receipt of  S.R. No-922177897. The further case is that after deposition of the draft, the unit certificate was not sent  to the complainant  on his given address. The further case is that after personal contact, the o.p disclosed the allotment of unit no.-932037017678 but no certificate was issued till filing of the case. The further case is that after 29-12-1992, no unit certificate was issued nor any payment was made after sending legal notices and other letters.

The complainant  has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of  letter dated 09-03-2009 of UTI to Sishir Kumar advocate   -annexure-1-, photocopy of  letter dated - 28-01-2009 of  UTI to Sishir Kumar advocate  -annexure-2-, photocopy  of   letter  of February 2007 of UTI to Namita Ranjan  annexure-3-,  photocopy of  letter dated 12-01-2007 of UTI to Nagendra Mohan Mishra annexure-4, photocopy of letter dated 04-01-2007 of UTI to Sri Balram Pd. Bhagat Chief Manager annexure-5, photocopy of  letter of UTI to Nagendra  Mohan Mishra annexure-6, photocopy of acknowledgement  in the scheme  ‘Raj Lakshmi  Unit scheme’  annexure-7, photocopy of depositing of Rs. 13,000/- in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for issuance of draft.

On issuance of notice o.ps no.-2 to 4 appeared and filed their w.s. on 23-09-2010 with prayer to dismiss the complaint. It has been mentioned  in the w.s. that Unit trust of India (herein after referred to as “trust” )  had been set up as a statutory corporation under the UTI Act 1963. It has been further mentioned that u/s 19-21 of the  said Act the Board of Trustees  of the UTI had power to make scheme and issue units to the public. It has been further mentioned that ‘Raj Lakshmi  scheme – 1992’ (hereinafter referred to as “RUS 92”) was one such Plan launched  by the UTI and it was subject to its scheme provisions with its modification  carried out from time to time. It has been further mentioned that the said scheme stood terminated  with effect from 30-09-2000. It has been further mentioned that  the said Act got repealed    by an Act of  parliament  more particularly  known  as unit trust of India  (transfer of undertaking repeal Act 2002, (hereinafter referred to as repealing Act” ) with effect from 29-10-2002. It has been further mentioned that as per the provisions of the repealing  Act,  trust has been bifurcated  to two entities namely,  (I). The  Administrator  of the  Specified Undertaking of UTI and (II)  The UTI Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. It has been further mentioned that  as per the repealing Act the Management  of the subject scheme  and also the schemes mentioned  in schedule –I  of the  Repealing  Act vests with the Administrator  of the specified undertaking of the UTI whose office is situated at UTI tower,  G.N. block Bandra-Kurla complex, Bandra  East, Mumbai. Hence, the name of  the o.ps may be  substituted with an Administrator  Specified Undertaking  of the UTI. It has been further mentioned  in the w.s. that the  complaint is barred by law of limitation. It has been further mentioned that  the cause of action of this case admittedly  arose  on 29-12-1992 i.e  the  date of investment whereas  the complaint  has been filed in the year 2010 that is after whopping gap  of 18 years.  A copy  of this  order dated 02-02-2010 passed by Hon’ble N.C. in the case of Mahindra  Sharma Vs UTI  has been annexed as annexure-A. It has been further mentioned that the complainant  is not a consumer as defined u/s  2 (1) (d) of the CP Act 1986. It has been further mentioned that the scheme  RUS-92 was terminated with effect from 30-09-2000 at the time of termination option was given to all investigator for taking the terminal  proceeds  or to convert the terminal proceeds  to one scheme launched by o.ps  for the benefit of the minor. It has been further mentioned  that the o.ps are handicapped  in providing details of the record pertains  to year 1992 as the records were destroyed in accordance with  SEBI instruction. It has been further mentioned  that the o.ps and its Registrars are governed by rules and regulations issued by Securities Exchange Board of India. A copy of extracts of the   guideline issued by SEBI, has been annexed  as annexure-B. It has been further mentioned that the certificate No. R932037017678 provided in the notice is pertains to some other unitholder namely “Soni” whose investment is Rs. 5000/. A copy of records showing her name is annexure-‘C’

O.P No.-1 also appeared and filed his w.s. on 30-04-2011  with prayer  to exclude his name from  o.p. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that post of Chief Representative  is remunerated post on Contractual  basis and not salaried post  and its day to day affairs run by  o.p no.-1 from his own office. It has been further mentioned that the investment was made prior  to his appointment,  hence no record is available  with him.

 The o.p No.- 2 to 4  has raised question  in their w.s. that the complaint is barred by law of limitation. This issue is primary issue to be decided at preliminary  stage. The investment is said to have been  done  on 29-12-1992 in the Scheme  of RUS-92 was terminated on 30-09-2000 as mentioned in the w.s.  of o.ps 2 to 4. The cause of action arose  on 29-12-1992 or before termination of the scheme that is 30-09-2000. If the certificate was not issued in the name of complainant  he had to file the complaint till 30-09-2000 or  just there after,  but  this complaint petition  has been filed on 22-06-2010 after 10 years or 18 years. The complainant has filed annexures of  letter of the year 2007 & 2009 which shows that the complainant  start his correspondence in the year  2007 whereas his case is  that after investment on 29-12-1992 no certificate nor payment was made in respect of units. So, no cause of action arose in the year 2007 or 2010. As per section 24 A  of the CP Act 1986, the complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. No petition for condonation of  delay has been filed on behalf of complainant.  No delay has been  condoned by this forum. So, we are of the considered opinion  that the complaint is hopelessly  barred by law of limitation and as such  the same is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant  has not adduced any evidence  in his favour. He has also not examined  himself  to prove his case. The o.p has denied the investment and   have stated in their  w.s.  that  unit certificate no.- R932037017678 has been Issued in the name of ‘SONI’. Copy of the same has been annexed as annexure- ‘C’. The complainant  has filed photocopy of   comterfoil of depositing of Rs. 13000/- cash in the Bank of State of Bikaner and Jaipur  but no paper has been filed to show that the ‘Bank Draft of Rs. 13000/- was sent to UTI for issuance of  Unit Certificate.

On the basis of above discussion we find that there is no deficiency on  part of o.ps rather there is deficiency on  part of complainant  and as such the complainant  is liable to dismissed.

Accordingly, the complaint petition is dismissed.