R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by Unit Trust of India, Navi Mumbai and 2 Others (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners), under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 20.01.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 97 of 2014 in First Appeal No. 900 of 2012.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission, while upholding the Order dated 31.05.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 794 of 2009, filed by the Complainant/Respondent herein, has dismissed the Appeal, filed by the Petitioners herein.  By its Order dated 31.05.2012, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.12578/- as the balance amount of the Scheme plus Rs.2900/- per year annuity (non-hospitalization expenses) for the period from 20.10.2004 to 04.03.2008, i.e. the date of closing of the Scheme, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 04.03.2008 till its realization and also pay a sum of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that on 20.10.1999 the Complainant/Respondent had taken Units of Rs.32,000/- under the Senior Citizen Unit Scheme (hereinafter referred as the Scheme) offered by the Petitioners and was provided Medical Insurance Cover, the premium of which was to be deducted from her policy/account. As per the documents given to the Complainant/Respondent, 7 installments of the premium were to be deducted, i.e. maximum sum of Rs.5625/- for first four years and maximum sum of Rs.4975/- for the next three years. The Complainant/Respondent received her account statement dated 07.01.2008 and found that the premium of October 2006 was deducted at the rate of Rs.8655.11 and a sum of Rs.13274.30 as additional premium for the period from 2001-2005 whereas a sum of Rs.4975/- was to be deducted from October 2005 and no intimation was given to her.  In this way, the Petitioners had deducted a sum of Rs.16954.41 in excess with the balance amount of Rs.12578/-, which was not paid to the Complainant/Respondent on account of Residual Amount.  Further, the annuity amount of Rs.2900/- per annum, which was to be paid to the Complainant/Respondent to take care of non-hospitalization expenses after attaining the age of 58 years was also not paid to her.  She took up the matter with the Petitioners and sent three registered AD letters dated 02.02.2008, 10.01.2009 and 21.02.2009 as also legal notice dated 11.06.2009 to them, seeking refund of the amount illegally deducted, but of no avail.  The Petitioners replied to the Complainant/Respondent that they had deducted the additional amount paid to New India Assurance Company (NIAC) on account of loan on the premium amount paid from the year 2001-2005, which was effected in the year 2006.  Accordingly, the Complainant/Respondent filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, praying for certain reliefs, including a direction to the Petitioners herein to pay the amount of Rs.29532.41, i.e. Rs.16954.41 + Rs.12578/-, along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deduction till realization and a sum of Rs.2900/- per annum from 15.11.2003 onwards along with the same interest from 15.11.2003 till realization.

3.       Upon notice, the Petitioners herein contested the Complaint and filed their Reply before the District Commission.  It was contended on their behalf that the prayer for refund of the aforesaid amount as also annuity with interest sought for was beyond the provisions of the Scheme and, therefore, the said claim subsequent to termination of the Scheme on 18.02.2008 was not only false but illegal. The premium was paid to the Insurance Company for providing hospitalization benefit.  The Investor has to receive the benefits as per the provisions of the Scheme.  The balance outstanding Units as on 18.02.2008 were 350.897 and accordingly the residual Units had been redeemed at the rate of Rs.23.2257 per unit and the redemption cheque dated 22.02.2008 for Rs.8149/- was dispatched to the Complainant/Respondent, which stands paid on 04.03.2008.  The Complainant/Respondent had filed the Complaint with false and non-existent claims and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4.       On appreciation of the material placed on record and the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Commission allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioners herein, observing thus:

“5.      In view of the abovesaid discussion we are of the considered view that as per Annexure-A any person in the age group of 18-54 years can join this scheme and he should be a resident or non resident of India and in the scheme it has further been mentioned that under the Scheme Medical Insurance cover of 2½ years was covered after attaining the age of 58 years and further the insurance cover was also available for both spouses after the age of 61 years at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- after adjusting any claim made earlier.  The insured can avail medical treatment in any of the hospital with whom they have made special arrangement and all the expenses of hospitalization was to be paid by NIAC directly.  As per table-I mentioned in Annexure-A the complainant paid Rs.32000/- at the age of 53 years and as per table-II the complainant would get Rs.20800/- residual amount after the age of 61 years in case he withdraws the same.  But in the present case the respondents themselves have closed the scheme and paid Rs.8222/- only to the complainant whereas the complainant was entitled to get Rs.20800 – 8222 = 12578.  Besides this the complainant was also entitled to get annuity at the rate of 2900/- per year after the age of 58 years and he purchased certificate on 20.10.1999 and he completed his 58 years age as on 19.10.2004.  So she is entitled to get Rs.2900/- per annum from 20.10.2004 to till the close of the scheme i.e. 4.3.2008 but the respondent has paid only Rs.8222/- to the complainant which is a meager amount as per scheme of the respondent.  It is unfair trade practice on the parts of the respondent and is a great deficiency in service on their parts.  If the respondent had redressed the grievances of the complainant being Senior Citizen then he would not come to knock the door of the Forum.  Hence the complainant is entitled for relief.”

5.       Feeling aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Commission, the Petitioners herein filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission.  As stated above, the State Commission upheld the Order passed by the District Commission and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners herein, inter alia, observing thus:

“…  it is clear that complainant was entitled for residual amount of Rs.20800/- and annuity to the tune of Rs.2900/- per annum.  Till the termination of scheme the OPs-appellants were liable to pay the same.  The learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion to this effect.  The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Appellants cannot derive any benefit from the decision of appeal No. 901 of 2012 as already mentioned at above because in that case the account of complainant was a negative whereas it is not so in the present case.”

6.       Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record, including the Written Version filed by the Petitioners before the District Commission, controverting the allegations leveled by the Complainant/Respondent in the Complaint, as also the Gazette of India dated 28^th August, 1993, wherein the Scheme was notified.   

7.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the figures of Residual Amount and Annuity shown in the Table-2 of the Offer Document were not guaranteed but were likely amounts, payment whereof was contingent upon appreciation of the fund deposited by the investors under the Scheme.  Due to liberalization of Indian economy, all assumptions regarding appreciation of funds came to naught.  The consequential effects of opening up of Indian economy and its linkage with the global market had deep impact on Indian market in general and the financial sector in particular.  The interest rate of 16-18%, which was prevailing at the time of launch of the Plan/Scheme, came crashing down to 8-9% p.a.  Thus, UTI was left with no option but to terminate the Scheme in order to safeguard the interest of the investors.  Further, no declaration of the Annuity was made by UTI.  It was also stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the payment of Residual Amount (balance amount left in the account of investor after payment of insurance premium) was dependent upon appreciation of funds deposited by the investor at the time of entry into the Scheme.  The Scheme was launched by UTI in 1993 on an assumption that funds would grow @ 16% per annum and the premium of seven installments payable to the Insurance Company by UTI for hospitalization benefit of the investors would remain stable @ Rs.5625/- for first four installments and Rs.4975/- for balance three installments.  Under the Scheme, the premium rate was to be reviewed initially at the end of 3 years and at the end of 2 years thereafter.  With the passage of time and review clause coming into operation, the premium payable to the Insurance Company got substantially increased. The Petitioners after making payment of 7 insurance premiums, out of total funds lying in the account of the Complainant/Respondent, handed over to her the Residual Amount of Rs.8149.83 left in her account vide cheque dated 20.02.2008, which stands credited into her account on 04.03.2008.  There was no necessity to issue notice before termination of the Scheme as per the provisions contained in the Gazette Notification dated 28.08.1993 and when the Scheme is terminated, the Complainant/Respondent herein cannot ask for Residual Amount and Annuity.  Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners herein and the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside.

8.       On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent has stated that the Fora below have rightly came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners herein in not paying the amounts sought for in the Complaint and, therefore, the present Revision Petition be dismissed.

9.       At the outset, it may be noted that this is a second round of litigation.  In the first round of litigation, the Petitioners herein had filed before this Commission Revision Petition No.619 of 2013, challenging the Order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the State Commission, and this Commission vide Order dated 27.01.2014 had remanded the matter back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on the basis of pleadings, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Parties.  Now, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the Impugned Order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the State Commission on remand of the matter by this Commission.  

10.     In the Written Version filed before the District Commission, the Petitioners had taken the pleas that: (i) no Annuity was declared or promised to be paid by the Petitioners under the subject Scheme; (ii) it was specifically mentioned in the Application Form of the Scheme that the Units will be issued in terms of the provisions of the Scheme and all investments in the mutual funds and securities are subject to market risks and the NAV of the Scheme may go up or down, depending upon the factors and forces affecting securities market; and (iii) the name of the Scheme does not in any manner indicate either the quality of the Scheme, its future prospects or returns.  It was also pleaded that the aspirant members opting for the Scheme were advised to read the offer document before investing.  Further, as stated above, the payment of Residual Amount, being the balance amount left in the account of investor after payment of insurance premium, was dependent upon appreciation of funds deposited by the investor at the time of entry into the Scheme and whatever amount was to be paid to the Complainant/Respondent accordingly after paying the insurance premium to the Insurance Company has been paid to her by means of a cheque, which stands credited to her account (at some places the said amount has been referred to as Rs.8149/- and at the other Rs.8222/-).  These aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the Fora below while granting the relief to the Complainant/Respondent.  Further, bearing in mind the subsisting financial system/market, which, with the liberalization of Indian economy, as pleaded by the Petitioners in their Reply, had undergone a vast change and money lending rates had come down heavily between the introduction of the Scheme in the year 1999 and its closure in the year 2008, which we are experiencing now-a-days too, if in order to safeguard the interests of the persons opting for the Scheme the Petitioners had closed the Scheme and paid the Residual Amount, after paying the substantially increased premium, which was in vogue at that time, in consonance with the provisions of the Scheme, which was duly notified in the Gazette of India on 28^th August, 1993, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on their part in doing so. Further, the Complainant/Respondent herein has not been able to rebut the stand taken by the Petitioners that no Annuity was declared or promised to be paid in the Scheme as there was no appreciation of funds due to drastic fall of interest rates. Further, it is not the case of the Complainant/Respondent that the calculation of the Units allocated to her was wrong or the amount paid by the Petitioners on redemption thereof was not proper.  

11.     It may be mentioned here that a Division Bench of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1233 of 2014 (Rama Walia Vs. UTI & Anr.), decided on 11.04.2016, had dismissed the Revision Petition, preferred by the Complainant Rama Walia.  For ready reference, the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2016 is reproduced below:-

“The broad issue raised in the present Revision Petition, viz., whether the Unit Trust of India was justified in terminating the Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 and thus depriving the unit holders of the benefits of the said Scheme, is no longer res integra.  The same issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5943 of 2000, filed by one Gaganmeet Kaur through her natural guardian.  The High Court, vide order dated 17.08.2005, relying on a decision of the Orissa High Court, which in turn had relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. CC 4320 of 2002, had dismissed the Writ Petition.  Against the said order, a Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA No. 2452 of 2005, was filed by the Writ Petitioner, in which an alternative prayer, seeking a direction to the UTI to refund the amount invested by the Appellant in that case along with interest @ 15.5% per annum was made.  However, the said LPA was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 08.02.2006.  Still not  being satisfied, the Writ Petitioner carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but without success, as vide order dated 09.05.2006 her Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) No. 7921 of 2006, was dismissed.

In the light of the said orders, the plea of the Petitioner’s Authorized Representative that the said issue has been decided in her favour by a decision of the Bombay High Court, cannot be accepted. 

We may note that while dealing with the same Scheme, this Commission vide order dated 22.11.2011 in Vijay Shakti v. Unit Trust of India & Anr, I (2012) CPJ 346 (NC), had also come to the conclusion that the UTI was justified in terminating the said Scheme and as such termination having been given wide publicity, the unit holders could not be heard to say that they were not aware of the termination of the said scheme and were entitled to the benefits thereunder.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.”

12.     Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not paying the amounts sought for by the Complainant/Respondent in the Complaint and, therefore, the Orders passed by the Fora below are liable to be set aside.  The same are set aside accordingly.      

13.     The Revision Petition stands allowed in the above terms.