Heard learned counsel for the both the parties on merit of the appeal.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act).
3. The appellant was the OP whereas the respondent in the said appeal was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
4. Learned counsels for the appellant submitted that the case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant’s grand father has purchased 500 units from Ops under the Rajalaxmi Unit Scheme. The investment was made on 15.02.1993 and the date of maturity was 15.02.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. After maturity the complainant applied to receive the maturity amount but the OP replied that the scheme has been terminated since 2000. Finding no other way, alleging about deficiency of service of OP, complaint was filed.
5. The OP filed written version stating that due to obvious reasons the scheme was terminated on 30.09.2000 and same has been published in newspaper. Since, the scheme has been terminated the question of refund of maturity amount does not arise. So, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxx xxx xxx
“ The case is disposed of on contest against opp.party No.1 & 2. OP No.1 is not at all liable in this case. Opp.Party No.2 is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand)only to the complainant within 45(fortyfive ) days of getting this order alongwith 7% yearly compundable interest on the maturity amount from the date of filing of this case i.e. from 16.12.2013 till actual payment is made. The opp.party No.2 shall also pay Rs.5000.00(Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant towards cost of litigation. It is made clear that in case of any deviation of this order by opp.party No.2, then it shall give 12% quarterly compundable interest on the maturity amount of Rs.1,05,000.00(Rupees one lakh five thousand) and accrued interest at the rate of 7% from 16.12.2013 and on litigation cost of Rs.5,000.00(Rupees Five thousand) from the 46th day of this order. “
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not dismissing the complaint case because the concerned scheme has been terminated. According to him the cause of action arose in 2000 but the complaint was filed on 2013 and without condoning delay the complaint was filed which is barred by limitation. Besides he submitted that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the materials on record which shows that the termination of the scheme was made and same was published in newspaper. He further submits that there is order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble National Commission that after termination of the scheme the OP has no liability. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount deposited is still available and same can be paid back on the approach by the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant being illiterate person has no any access to newspaper to know the termination of the scheme. He submitted that after date of maturity when the complainant did not receive the maturity amount she filed the case and as such it is not barred by limitation.
9. Considered the submission of respective counsels, perused DFR including impugned order. The complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
10. It is admitted fact that complainant’s grand father had purchased 500 units from OP. It is not in dispute that units were purchased under Rajalaxmi Units Scheme on 15.02.1993 with the date of maturity on 15.02.2013.
11. There is already Unit Trust of India Bulletin to show that in the event of termination of the scheme in the manner specified the trust should determine pre-purchase rights by valuing the units and payable to the concerned investor. Also found from the copy of the Indian Express dtd.14.09.2000 that such revised Scheme has been determined. This determination of the scheme has been upheld in different judicial pronouncements, there is no any 2nd opinion on it as per the copies of the judgments available on record. When the maturity amount is to be available in 2013 and the complaint is filed in 15.12.2013 the question of limitation does not arise.
12. It is well settled in law that any information published in newspaper, it is supposed to be brought to the knowledge of the public including the affected person. In view of publication of newspaper scheme is proved to have been terminated in 2000 and it has been brought to the knowledge of all. When scheme has been terminated, the question of payment of maturity amount does not arise. However, the invested money of Rs.15,000/- with the accrued interest should be refunded to the complainant who is the legal heir of the original investor. It is not known why the OP has not offered such amount till then.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion the impugned order is hereby confirmed with little modification that the OP would return Rs.15,990.23 with accrued interest till date of termination and thereafter such amount as accrued to the complainant’s grand father on date of termination of the scheme would be payable with 12 % interest from the date of termination of the scheme till date of payment to the complainant. Besides the OP is directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. This order will be carried out within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which all the amounts would carry interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of impugned order till actual payment.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
