BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM:: GUNTUR Present: Sri T. Anjaneyulu, B.Sc. L.L.B., President Smt. C.Rachel Devavaram, M.A., M.Ed., L.L.M.,(Ph.D) Member Monday, the 29th day of September, 2008 C.C.No.625 of 2007 BETWEEN: A.V.Sree Mani Deepthi, Being the minor represented by guardian, next friend and her mother Amara Venkata Jhansi, D/o. late A.V.B.Rao, R/o. Near office of V.G.T. Development Authority, 6/12, Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant AND 1. K.B.Tilak Association, Authorized Agent of UTI, 7/3, Arundelpet, Guntur. 2. The Branch Manager, Unit Trust of India, Dr.Sridhar Reddy Complex, 1st floor, Vijaya Talkies Junction, Eluru Road, Vijayawada. ... Opposite Parties This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24.09.2008 in the presence of Sri K.Haranadha Raju, Advocate for complainant, 1st OP remained exparte and in the presence of 2nd OP, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:- O R D E R Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT: This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant through his next friend, her natural mother Smt. A.V.Jhansi seeking directions on the opposite parties for awarding maturity amount of the unit certificate and grant sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for damages including mental agony, pain and suffering besides Rs.5000/- being the cost of litigation. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a minor represented by her guardian next friend and natural mother namely A.V.Jhansi, R/o. Brodiepet, Guntur. The complainant had purchased 1000 units, each of the face value of Rs.10/- under the scheme of Children’s Gift Growth Fund Unit in 1986 through the 1st opposite party vide bearing unit certificate No.302970030004011. The certificate was issued on 15-11-1991 and the date of maturity is 15-11-2012. The complainant in the meantime came to know that the opposite party closed the above scheme and decided to refund the amount to the unit holders. As on today the complainant did not receive any amount from the opposite party and there is no communication at all from them. The complainant personally visited the opposite party office several times and requested for the payment of said amount. But, the opposite party postponed the same on one or other pretext. At last the complainant got issued a legal notice through her counsel on 28-08-07 by way of registered post to the opposite party. The opposite party received the same but kept quite. There is no response from them and they have paid deaf ear. Due to the attitude and behavior of the opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot both mentally and financially. This amounts to clear deficiency of service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint. The 1st opposite party remained exparte. The 2nd opposite party filed its version. The brief facts of version are as follows: Unit Trust of India had been setup as a Statutory Corporation under Unit Trust of India Act, 1963. The head office of the Trust is situated at No.13, Sir Vithaldas Thackersay Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai. The 2nd opposite party is Branch Office of the Trust at Vijayawada. Under section 21 of the said Act, the Board of Trustees is empowered to formulate plans and issue units to public. Children’s Gift Growth Fund is one such scheme launched by the Trust. The Trust has appointed UTI Technology Service Ltd. as the Registrar and Transfer agent for the said scheme. Therefore, this reply is being filed by the said services. The complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging non receipt of repurchase amount in respect of certificate No.302970030004011 under CGGF Scheme and thereby for direction on the opposite party to pay maturity amount together with Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs of the complaint. Except those that are specifically and expressly admitted, all other allegations are denied as false. At the outset, the complaint is not maintainable. It is hopelessly barred by limitation. As per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. In this case, the unit has been repurchased in the year 2004 and the complaint is filed in the year 2007 i.e., after gap of three and half years. The present complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The Indian Overseas bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur as well as Mr.A. Vijay Mahadev, Branch Manager, LIC of India, CB-II 699, Kothapet, Guntur who had encashed the cheques are required to be called for the examination. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed for the non-joinder of necessary party. Further, the complaint is also not maintainable due to the complex nature of transactions, which need examination and cross examination of witnesses. Only the Civil Courts/Criminal Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. Section 14(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not permit the investigation and adjudication of such matter. Without prejudice to the above, the opposite party submits as follows: As per our records, the repurchase cheque bearing Nos.RD300003C00260481 and RD300003C00260491 and MICR Nos. 531428 and 531429 both dt.01-04-04 for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1336/- was issued by the opposite party and they were encashed by one Mr.A.Vijaya Mahadev on 24-05-04 through Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur having saving bank A/c. No.4657. The factual position was informed to the complainant and the matter was followed up with said imposter as well as the payee bank. They have not responded yet. The opposite party has no vested interest in the matter. It is further submitted that the entire matter revolved in between Mr.A.Vijaya Mahadev, Branch Manager, LIC of India, CB-II 699, Kothapet, Guntur and the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur. Therefore, the complainant may kindly be directed to seek redressal of his grievance from an appropriate court of law against those persons. In case the Hon’ble Forum deems it proper to adjudicate the matter, the said bank & imposter may please be impleaded as necessary parties to these proceedings, without which the rights of the opposite parties would be geopardized. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. Now the points for determination are that - Whether Mr.A.Vijaya Mahadev, Branch Manager, LIC of India, CB-II 699, Kothapet, Guntur and the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur are necessary and proper parties?
- Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the above referred parties?
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and to what extent?
POINT Nos.1 & 2 The complainant has filed the chief affidavit of her next friend/guardian apart from marking of documents Ex.A1 to A3. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties. The opposite parties do not dispute the purchase of 1000 units having face value of Rs.10/- of each unit under the scheme of Childern’s Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 vide unit certificate No. 302970030004011 issued on 15-11-1991 and the maturity date is 15-11-2012, by the complainant. However, the contention is that the said units were repurchased due to closure of the scheme and cheque bearing Nos.RD300003C00260481 and RD300003C00260491 and MICR Nos.531428 and 531429 both dt.01-04-04 for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1336/- were issued in favour of one Mr.A.Vijaya Mahadev, who had encashed the same on 24-05-04 through Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur having saving bank A/c.No.4657. Therefore, the said A.Vijaya Mahadev and the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur are necessary parties to the present proceedings. The opposite parties did not make it clear either in their version or affidavit in what way Mr.A.Vijaya Mahadev related to the complainant and in what capacity he has received the above-referred cheques for encashment. They throw burden on the complainant to implead the above referred persons in this dispute. The complainant is quite ignorant about the receipt of cheques by said A.Vijaya Mahadev and consequent encashment. It is for the opposite party to explain about the said person. Therefore, they cannot be heard to say that Sri A.Vijaya Mahadev and Indian Overseas Bank are to be brought on record through the complainant. The circumstances under which the cheques were issued for encashment to Sri A.Vijaya Mahadev, is got to be explained by the opposite party. It is purely their lookout. Hence, we are of the view that Sri A.Vijaya Mahadev and the Indian Overseas Bank, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur are not proper and necessary parties to the present proceedings and the complaint is no way bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The points are answered accordingly. POINT No.3 The opposite parties took a plea that present dispute is barred by limitation since the units have been repurchased in the year 2004 and the complaint is filed in the year 2007. It is seen from the record that the complainant did not receive any intimation of repurchase of units nor the cheques for encashment in the year 2004. On the other hand, it is their case that number of times they visited the office of opposite party and requested for payment of above amount, but the same is postponed. As there was no other go, the complainant got issued legal notice on 28-08-07, which was received by the opposite party vide acknowledgment under Ex.A3. Copy of legal notice is Ex.A2. As there was no response from the opposite party, the present complaint is filed. As long as the complainant did not receive the payment of repurchased units and in absence of repudiation of the claim, the cause of action survive till the maturity date of the unit certificate and even beyond the period for three years. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the opposite parties. The point is answered against them. POINT Nos.4 & 5 As there is no dispute about the purchase of unit certificate by the complainant under the aforesaid scheme and as the value of repurchase is not received by the complainant, she is entitled to claim the value of repurchase of units. The complainant (next friend guardian) is also put to mental harassment for non-receipt of the amount. Therefore, she is entitled for reasonable amount of compensation. Accordingly, we award sum of Rs.5000/- and costs of litigation Rs.1000/-. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below: - The opposite parties are directed to pay the value of repurchase of unit certificate vide original of Ex.A1 along with compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.
- The aforesaid sums shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from that date till the date of realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29th day of September, 2008. Sd/- x x x PRESIDENT Sd/- x x x MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE No oral evidence is adduced on either side DOCUMENTS MARKED For Complainant : Ex.No. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS | A1 | --- | Copy of unit certificate bearing No. 302970030004011 issued by the 1st opposite party | A2 | 28-08-07 | Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant | A3 | 30-08-07 | Acknowledgement card |
For Opposite Parties: NIL Sd/- x x x PRESIDENT |
