1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, the counsel for the petitioners. Vide order dated 27.05.2016, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte. Today also, no one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This revision has been filed against the order of District Consumer Forum, Kanpur dated 18.09.2021 passed in CC No.548 of 2001 as State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow by order dated 12.07.2015 passed in FA No.2744 of 2001, has not granted full relief to the petitioners. 3. The Consumer Complaint No. 548 of 2001 was filed on the allegation that the complainant had obtained “Units” on 31.03.1992 worth Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties/petitioners. On 13.12.2000, the Complainant gave the Membership Certificate for encashment of the Units but it was not paid to the complainant with maturity benefit. 4. The petitioners stated that in the complaint, notices were issued on 10.09.2001 fixing date of 14.09.2001. On 14.09.2001, the case was adjourned for 18.09.2001 and ex-parte judgment was passed on that date directing the Opposite Parties to make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and also to pay interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 13.03.1992 and Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment. The order dated 18.09.2001 was challenged in Appeal No. 2744 of 2001 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. which was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by District Forum was waived. Hence, this revision has been filed. 5. The counsel the petitioners submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 21 of Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, Master Equity Plan, 1992 was launched. It was a ten year ‘growth oriented plan’ with facility of repurchase, after initial lock-in-period of three years. The repurchase/ termination was subject to concessional tax treatment under Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and repurchase of Unit was required to be added in the Income of Unit holder in the year of repurchase and subject to Income Tax. The Complainant submitted the certificate relating to Units for repurchase on 23.12.2000. The case was processed @ Rs. 16.53 per Unit, the prevailing rate on 23.12.2000. After deducting TDS of Rs. 2200/- cheque No. RP400041C00038501 dated 23.12.2000 of the remaining value of the Units, was sent to the complainant, on his registered address which was never received back. After receipt of the notice of the District Forum, a fresh cheque No. MS400041R00003185, dated 07.09.2001, of Rs.14330/- and another of Rs. 789/- relating to an interest @ 7% per annum on the maturity value of Units were submitted before District Forum on 18.09.2001, which were received by the complainant and later on they were encashed. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. District Forum, pre-poning the date passed ex-parte order within 4 days of the notice and without taking notice that entire amount relating to the Units along interest till date was received by the complainant. The order of the District Forum directing for payment of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.1992 and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation was also illegal. However, the State Commission allowed the appeal only for the compensation. There is no controversy in respect of the aforesaid fact. As the Complainant has already accepted the cheque which was in respect of maturity benefits of the Units as well as the interest accrued on it, no further relief could have been granted to him. In such circumstance, the impugned order of District Forum directing for payment of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.1992, is illegal. It may be mentioned that State Commission has already set aside the order relating to payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the District Consumer Forum dated 18.09.2001 by which the petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.1992, is hereby set aside. |
