KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 601/2006
JUDGMENT DATED:25-01-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
The Registrar, Unit Trust of India-
Investor Service Ltd., 45 Justice-
Basheer Ahammed Building, : APPELLANT
II line beach, Chennai.
(By Adv.Sri.S. Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. P.Raghavan, Supriya House,
Narath.P.O, Kannur.
(By Adv. Smt.N.Shamna)
: RESPONDENTS
2. M/s Unit Trust of India,
Franchisee Office,
Malabar Towers, Kannur-2.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
The order dated:30/1/2006 in OP.26/02 of CDRF, Kannur is being assailed in this appeal by the 1st opposite party who is under directions along with the 2nd opposite party to refund Rs.40,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has invested Rs.40,000/- under the scheme UTI.ISL/GSEC/Free form/3 on 2-9-1999 with the assurance of the 2nd opposite party that the statement of account of application will be sent by the 1st opposite party within one month. It is his case that even after repeated request, the opposite parties were negligent in sending the statement of account as promised and a cheque that was sent by the 2nd opposite party was also bounced for non availability of funds. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Though notice was served, the opposite parties did not appear and contest the matter. They were set exparte.
4. The evidence consisted of the documents produced by the complainant as Exts.A1 to A6. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/1st opposite party submitted before us that though notice was received they could not contest the matter as the records relating to the case were lost in transit while the file was sent from Chennai office to Bombay office. It is also his case that the Forum below had not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct perspective. It is argued by him that the complainant had suppressed many material facts and that he had approached the Forum below with unclean hands. It is submitted by him that the matter was not contested because of no fault of the opposite parties and he prayed for a remand of the matter to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the opposite parties to file version and adduce evidence.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we find that the short prayer as envisaged in the memorandum of the appeal is that the opposite parties should be given an opportunity to contest the matter and for that purpose the matter is to be remitted back to the Forum below. On a perusal of the records and on an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant is genuine. All the same it is also found that they were exparte before the Forum. In such a circumstance we find that the matter can be remitted to the Forum below for fresh disposal only on terms. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the 1st respondent/complainant and on payment the Forum below shall issue notice to both parties and gave the opposite parties an opportunity to file version and contest the matter in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the Forum below is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal as indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there shall be no order as to costs.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
VL.
