RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 821 of 2000
1- Unit Trust of India through its General Manager,
(WZO) Commerce Centre, 28th Floor, World
Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005
2- Datamatics Financial Services Ltd., Plot no.A 16
& 17, Part B Crosslane MIDC, Marol,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 .….Appellants.
Versus
Dhamendra Kumar Mittal c/o Shri R.K. Singhal,
38, Bandhi Nagar, Baba Lal Das Road,
Saharanpur. U.P. ….Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.
Sri U.K. Srivastava, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Date 13.6.2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1999, passed by the District Forum, Saharanpur in complaint case no.259 of 1999.
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had purchased 2500 units of UTI Master Gain, 92 from the appellant/OP in the year 1995. The OP no.1 had offered for repurchase of the unit and every unit owner was to be paid Rs.13.79 per unit. On the aforesaid repurchase offer, the complainant, duly discharging the unit certificates, sent them for repurchase to the OP no.2 through courier on 9.8.1995 and the complainant was to receive Rs.34,475.00 for the units at Rs.13.79 per unit. But the complainant did not get any amount then he sent a reminder
(2)
on 15.12.1995 to the OPs whereupon the OP no.2 demanded certain informations from the complainant which was duly provided to the OP. Subsequently, vide letter dated 24.4.1996, the OP no.2 informed the complainant that warrant sent to the complainant appears to have been undelivered and hence, he was again asked to provide a letter of undertaking on a stamp paper so that duplicate cheque could be issued. Then the complainant again completed the formalities but he did not get any amount and was told that his signatures are not tallying as per their record hence, he should send his signatures after getting them verified from the Bank. The complainant completed the formalities also but still he did not get any payment after providing all the information regarding sending of the units for repurchase. Again the OP asked him to fulfill certain formalities, whereupon again the complainant completed the formalities but he was not given the payment, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint case before the Forum below for payment of the amount alongwith interest. The OP sent a reply through post mentioning therein that the units sent for repurchase were not available at their end and again asked the complainant for providing the letter of undertaking. Thereafter, the ld. Forum passed the impugned order on 24.12.1999 as under:-
"विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह वादी को इस आदेश के एक माह के अन्दर 2500 यूनिट की दि0 9-8-95 की रिप्रचेज कीमत 34475/- रूपये तथा इसपर 10 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से दि0 18-7-96 तक का ब्याज अदा करें। अन्यथा उपरोक्त 34475/- रू0 एंव उपरोक्त ब्याज की समस्त राशि के योग पर दि0 9-8-95 से वास्तविक अदायगी की तिथि तक 12
प्रतिशत की दर से साधारण वार्षिक ब्याज भी विपक्षीगण द्वारा वादी को देय होगा।"
(3)
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that this appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds that the complaint has failed to provide any evidence regarding lodging of repurchase of the certificates with the OPs. The OPs had taken precautionary measures presuming that certificate must have been lost in the postal transactions and had requested the respondent to apply for duplicate certificates as per norms. Besides, in compliance of the order passed by the Forum, the appellants have arranged to make payment of Rs.34,475.00 being the repurchase amount for 2500 units, apart from payment of Rs.3,000.00 as dividend to the respondent. But, the interest @10% on this amount was totally unwarranted as the appellants/OPs did not commit any deficiency in service. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
Heard counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.
In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased 2500 units of UTI Master Gain, 92 and that the value of these units on the date of repurchase offer was Rs.13.79 per unit and hence, total repurchase price of the units was Rs.34,475.00. The disputed point according to the appellant/OP is that the certificates were never received by them and therefore, the payment could not be made to the complainant and therefore, they did not commit any deficiency in service whereas according to the respondent/ complainant, he had submitted the certificates for repurchase but was not paid the value of the units by the appellant and therefore, they committed deficiency in service.
(4)
So now it is to be seen as to whether the appellants/OPs committed deficiency in not making payment of repurchase value of the units. If so, its consequences.
It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the appellants had not received the certificates sent for repurchase by the complainant, therefore, he was asked to complete the formality of letter of undertaking etc. and therefore, the OPs did not commit any deficiency in service hence, the order passed by the Forum below was not proper. But, it transpires that the complainant has in his complaint stated that the OPs have sent them a letter mentioning that the cheque which appears to have been sent to the complainant remained undelivered and therefore, he must fulfill the formalities of issuing a duplicate cheque. It also transpires that the complainant many times fulfilled the formalities such as sending of letter of under-taking etc. In fact, on one occasion the payment was not made to the complainant on the ground that his signatures did not tally and that he should send his signatures duly verified from the Bank but when the complainant completed that formality also then too the payment was not made to the complainant. This shows an entirely callous attitude on the part of the OPs in making payment to the complainant. In the backdrop of such scenario, it is found that the OPs appear to have made arrangement of payment of the amount of repurchase to the complainant in compliance of the order of the Forum below and has pleaded for setting aside the order of interest allowed @ 10% on the amount of 34,475.00 but from the record, it is abundantly clear that the appellants/OPs did not act diligently
(5)
in the matter concerning payment of repurchase price to the complainant and that is the reason why repurchase price of Rs.34,475.00 could not be paid to the complainant in time, therefore, there does not appear to be any reason for not awarding interest on the amount of repurchase price which has been allowed by the Forum below on the amount of repurchase. So, considering the deficiency in service of the appellants/OPs the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order rightly but awarding of interest @12% p.a. in default is unwarranted which is liable to be set aside. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.1999 is amended to the extent that interest @12% p.a. in default is set aside. The rest of the order shall remain as it is.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Raj Kamal Gupta)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA-II
Court No.2
