Haryana

Karnal

CC/365/2019

Kirti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrunal Bagadure, Deputy Manager, UTI Infrastructure Technology & Service Limited - Opp.Party(s)

J.K. Sahni

02 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 365 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt. 21.06.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 02.07.2019

 

Kirti daughter of Anupam wife of Shri Anil Gandhi c/o J.K. Sahni Advocate, Chamber no.33, District Courts, Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

Mrunal Bagadure, Deputy Manager, UTI Infrastructure Technology & Services Ltd. Plot no.3, Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

            

 

 Present: Shri J.K. Sahni Advocate for complainant.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased the unit vide reference no.63816433 Investor ID 221330340 for non-completion of service Against Inward no.63816433-Kirti on 02.05.1994 but the OPs never paid the said amount and complainant requested the OP through Mr. Handa SCO no.70, 1^st floor, Sector-20, Chandigarh to pay the said liability in her name. These units were purchased from Jind where she was born on 1.12.1993, whereby her mother resided alongwith her maternal grandfather who was posted as Income Tax Officer, Jind and her Maternal grandfather was transferred from Jind to Sonepat in 1994 and ultimately retired in November, 1995 and shifted to Karnal. The abovesaid company transferred her account of Rs.24,038/-+interest of Rs.7958/- in the month of 3.2.2018. After this a notice was issued to the OP on 27.11.2018. In reply to this notice dated 10.12.2018 the said company replied. The specific undertaking of Unit Trust of India had taken decision for termination of the CGGF86 scheme on J31.03.2004 and as per the decision of termination, the option form/s had been sent to the Unit Holders in the year 2004, offering option either to exit from CGGF86 Scheme or opt for Assured Return Bond Scheme on behalf of Government of India. The last date for receipt of the option from was 16.02.2014. It was also decided that if investor has not ticked for selecting option/incomplete form filled in or optiolvfoTrrT does not receive by 16.02.2004 then it is to be treated as investor has opted for ARS tax-free bonds by default. These bonds are GOI bonds, issued for 5 years and the maturity was in April 2009. Half yearly interest was due on every October and April @ 6.6% till maturity. The value of the bonds were Rs.100/- per bond.

        The public notice was issued in the leading newspaper before the termination, for exercising the option by the unit holder either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to 6.60% tax free ARS bonds guaranteed by Government of India. In cases the terminate value under CGGF86 scheme has been converted into ARS bonds. The ARS bond details are as given below:

CGGF-86 Certificate no.400944230395200

No. of Units                640           Additional Units 1535.4210

Total Units          2175.42.10

Termination value converted to bonds @ 11.050: 24038.40

No. of Bonds (F.V. 100/- per bond)        240/-

Bond Certificate no.41357266        ID no.22330310

Name                Kirti

        On receipt of documents from their end, they have released the payment in the year, 2018. There are no pending dues for settlement under investor ID no.221330340. The complainant is not read the newspaper issued from Mumbai and thus any action taken by OP is without notice and with information of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

3.             Today the case was fixed for consideration on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in the present complaint is or not?

4.             The jurisdiction of the District Forum is defined in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reproduced as under:-

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:-

11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office, or) works for gain; or

b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or) personally works for gain: Provided that in such case either the permission f the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office, or) personally work, or gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c)  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arise.

                On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it indicates that the units in question were issued from Jind. This fact is also admitted by the complainant herself in her complaint. No cause of action arose at Karnal. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

5.             In view of such facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is not admitted and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.07.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member