O R D E R :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )
Admittedly, Shri Roop Lal Sharma purchased a policy dated 05-09-1996 under a scheme ‘Children’s Gift Growth Fund Scheme’ in favour of his dauther Kumari Diksha Sharma (complainant) floated by the Union Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trust’) a statutory corporation established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, having date of maturity as on 02-09-2014 and with maturity amount of Rupees 1,05,752/-. But the said scheme was foreclosed w.e.f. 31-03-2004. Before the termination of said scheme, an option was given to all unit holders either to opt for payment of the terminal proceeds or for conversion of the terminal proceeds into 6.60% tradable tax free bounds guaranteed by the Government of India. The voucher for termination of the said scheme was published in all Major National Dailies including Indian Express dated 24-12-2003 Annexure-A to enable all unit holders to exercise their option and the option form against the certificate was sent at the correct address of the complainant.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that she is living abroad and when visited India came to know that the complete amount had been received by one Diksha Kumari of her village fraudulently and no amount was drawn by the complainant. The said amount had been paid to one Diksha Kumari by the trust without making proper verification which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant served upon the opposite parties a legal notice dated 07-12-2010 , but even then the opposite parties did not pay any heed and failed to make a payment to the complainant due to which the complainant suffered monetary loss, harassment and mental pain.
3. The opposite party No.1 disputed the said claim and has set up the said defence that he is an agent of Union Trust of India he opened the policy in question of minor kumari Diksha, as per growth chart of the said policy, on receipt of Rupees 10,000/- on 05-09-2010 and deposited the said amount with the opposite parties No.2 to 4 and as such he has committed no deficiency in service.
4. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 also disputed the said claim and have set up the defence that the said scheme was foreclosed w.e.f. 31-03-2004. Before the date of the said termination, option forms were sent to all unit holders under CGGF either to opt for payment of the terminal proceed or for conversion of teriminal proceeds into 6.60% tax free bounds guaranteed by the government of India. The option form was received from ‘Suresha Kumari’ declaring herself as mother of minor unit holder Diksha Sharma opting for payment of redemption payment without any change in the address. Accordingly, the trust issued cheques No. 793867 of Rupees 25,000/- and 793868 of Rupees 1934.79 paisa dated 01-04-2004 in favour of Diksha Sharma represented by Suresha Kumari. The option form was duly attested by Punjab National Bank Galore , H.P., furnishing bank particulars of A/c No. 106846 Punjab National Bank village Pipplu, PO Fahl, Glore, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Believing the same to be a bonafide on the basis of attestation of said bank the redemption proceeds against the certificate in question was sent vide said cheques. The trust received notice from the lawyer of the complainant regarding non receipt of the redemption proceeds upon which the trust found that some other Diksha Sharma of the village of the complainant had encashed redemption proceeds due to the delivery of the redemption form to other Diksha Sharma by the postal authority. Hence the opposite parties have committed no deficiency in service.
5. As stated above, the Annexure C-12 is the copy of ration card of Roop Lal Sharma. His wife is named as Sushma Sharma , son as Munish Sharma and daughter as Poonam Sharma. The complainant has produced in evidence the copy of an affidavit Annexure C-12 in which the father of the complainant has deposed that the name of his daughter in the school certificate and record is ‘Poonam Devi’, but when he purchased the policy of Union Trust of India in question he had given the name of his daughter as ‘Kumari Diksha Sharma’. There is no dispute that the name of the mother of the complainant is Sushma Sharma. The option Annexure –B has been given not by Sushma Sharma the mother of the complainant or by Roop Lal Sharma her father but the same is given by Suresha Kumari and an amount of Rupees 25,000/- + 1934.79 paisa was paid in favour of Diksha Sharma daughter of Suresha Kumari and Pawan Kumar Sharma in place of complainant Kumari Diksha Sharma daughter of Sushma Kumari and Roop Lal Sharma. In view of the said facts it is apparent that the opposite parties No.2 to 4 have failed to scrutinize and verify the option given by Suresha Kumari on behalf of Diksha Sharma Annexure –B. The policy was purchased by Roop Lal Sharma and the name of mother of the complainant is Sushma Sharma , but the opposite parties failed to take into consideration the said facts and accepted the option in a negligent manner which definitely consituttes deficiency in service due to which the payment has wrongly been made in favour of Diksha Sharma dauther of Pawan Kumar Sharma and Suresha Kumari.
6. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss, harassment and mental tension.
7. The complainant has claimed that she is entitled to get Rupees 1,05,752/- , but the said claim is premature and not legally sustainable. To claim the said amount the complainant was reqired to wait for the maturity date i.e. 02-09-2014 and prior to the said date the complainant had no right to claim the maturity amount nor to claim the said maturity amount any cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant on 06-04-2011 when she filed the complaint. Even otherwise the trust had the legal right under the Unit Trust of India Act 2002 to foreclose the unit scheme of the policy in question which was closed by it w.e.f. 31-03-2004 which fact is not disputed by the complainant. The complainant has only claimed that the payment has been wrongly made to other Diksha Sharma without verifying the actual fact when she was abroad. It has already been held that the opposite parties No.2 to 4 definitely failed to verify the identity of the complainant and issued the warrant in the name of other Diksha which amounts to deficiency in service.
8. The complainant was entitled to get Rupees 25,000/- on 01-04-2004 but the opposite party failed to pay the same to the complainant and paid the same to some other Diksha hence the trust is liable to pay the said amount along with appropriate interest. It is transpired that the trust has made payment of Rupees 44,487/- to the complainant through her counsel on 24-07-2014 vide demand draft Annexure RW4. The said amount has been duly received by the ld. Counsel for the complainant Shri P.K.Bhatti in lieu of full and final settlement of the claim. The trust has made payment of Rupees 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of about 9% and the same has been received by Shri P.K.Bhatti, Adv., on behalf of the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim. In the opinion of this Forum the complainant was entitled to get the amount of Rupees 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 01-04-2004 till paid and the same has already been paid by the opposite parties No.2 to 4 to the complainant and now in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the complaint.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The complainant was entitled to get Rupees 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum w.e.f. 01-04-2004 till payment and the same has already been received by the complainant through her counsel on 24-07-2004 vide document Annexure RW4 amounting to Rupees 44,487/-. Apart, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 are also directed to pay cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 5000/. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
(B.R. Chandel )
President
(Th. Digvijay Singh) ( Sushma Sharma)
Member Member
