Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member Heard Ms.Suvarna Joshi, Learned Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 24/02/2011 in consumer complaint No.29/2004 (Mukund Devidas Kulkarni & Anr. V/s. Unit Trust of India & Ors.), passed by District Forum, Nashik, thereby allowing the consumer complaint against the opponent Nos.2&3 i.e. appellant Nos.1&2 with directions to pay amount of `1 Lakh within 30 days from the date of order together with amount of `15,000/- as compensation. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants/org. opponent Nos.2&3-Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘UTI’ for brevity) preferred this appeal on the ground that UTI never received the investment amount of `26,200/- (`12,500/- + `13,700/-) from respondent Nos.1&2/org. complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’) for depositing the money in the Children Gift Growth Fund, 1986 as the alleged amount paid towards investment in the scheme to respondent No.3/org. opponent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘agent’) is also denied to have received by the agent. Said scheme of Children Gift Growth Fund was terminated and the option was given to the investors to take refund of the proceeds as per provisions of the scheme. However, complainants did not come forward together with certificates to exercise the option of getting refund of money invested. There was also delay in filing consumer complaint which was not properly appreciated by the Learned District Forum and it was further mentioned that on any count the consumer complaint was not tenable which came to be allowed in favour of the complainants by allowing said consumer complaint. 4. Admitted facts as on record are that respondent No.3/org. opponent No.1 was the authorized agent of the UTI to promote the investment under various schemes and amount of `12,500/- was paid vide receipt dated 23/03/1991 and for another payment of `13,700/- receipt dated 23/10/1991 was issued by said Agent on behalf of appellants/UTI. The scheme called ‘Children Gift Growth Fund, 1986’ was launched by the UTI to promote the saving for the benefits of children to enable them to achieve maximum returns on attaining the majority or prescribed age. Said scheme was withdrawn or repealed somewhere in March 2004. Said amount was invested in the scheme in the name of respondent No.2-Ms.Bhagashri, daughter of respondent No.1 who was then 8 years old. The amount invested in the scheme was to be refunded on attaining age of 21 years. Respondent No.2 was major and attained the age of 21 years as on 21/07/2003. In spite of constant reminders to the agent, certificates in respect of investments were not handed over and when the notice was issued for making those certificates available, it was stated that the matter being very old, these certificates were not traceable. Since, no response was coming forward from the UTI and agent for refunding the amount together with the benefits payable on the units purchased, complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nashik for refund of the amount invested in the scheme of the UTI. 5. Learned Advocate of the appellants/UTI submitted that UTI/appellants are not directly responsible as no amount on account of scheme was ever paid to them. Therefore, their liability as against payment ordered to be paid by the District Forum vide impugned order does not arise. The scheme was terminated on 31/03/2004 and the proceeds were paid to all the investors as per the provisions. It was further pleaded that the complainants did not come forward along with certificates of the scheme to collect the proceeds after termination of the scheme and belatedly filed consumer complaint in the year 2004. 6. Complainants and their Advocate preferred to remain absent. On perusal of the record, we find that complainants issued first notice to the agent of appellants/UTI for making available certificates of investments as they were not made available in spite of constant persuasion. On failure of the agent to provide said certificates, the complainants issued legal notice to the appellants/UTI and the agent thereby claiming proceeds under the scheme of investment. Since, no response came forward from the appellants/UTI, consumer complaint was preferred by the complainants claiming proceeds under the scheme of investment. It is evident that the scheme was drafted for the benefits of growing children and investment in scheme in their name was payable on achieving majority or prescribed age of 21 years. As per the scheme, daughter of complainant No.1 achieved age of 21 years as on 21/07/2003. Therefore, cause of action to prefer claim arose only on attaining age of 21 years by daughter of complainant No.1 and rightly so. The complainants took up the issue with UTI and their agent first time on 29/11/2003. The consumer complaint came to be filed on 01/03/2004 on failure of any response from the opponents. The issue of alleged delay has been properly dealt with and addressed by Learned District Forum. Therefore, submission that consumer complaint was beyond the limitation as contended by Learned Advocate of the UTI is not tenable. 7. The scheme was floated by appellants/UTI and it was operated through their agent. An amount of `26,200/- (`12,500/- + `13,700/-) was invested in the said scheme. There was failure on the part of agent of UTI to issue certificates under the scheme after having received the amount on account of investment. Even contention of the UTI that the said amount was not directly paid to them is not acceptable as the receipts dated 23/03/1991 and 23/10/1991 were issued under the Agency Code of the said agent as a valid receipt on the letter head of Unit Trust of India, Acknowledgement CGGF, 1986. Therefore, submission or contention of the UTI that moneys were not directly paid to them is fallacious and misleading as said receipts were issued by their authorized agent to the complainants. On maturity of the investment under said scheme, the complainants were entitled to get proceeds as spelt out in the scheme. Even UTI did not bother or take cognizance of the legal notice issued by the complainants. There is no record to show that termination of said scheme has been intimated by UTI or their agent to the complainants. Therefore, presumption that complainants should have come forward along with certificates issued under the scheme for collecting the proceeds in the year 2004 i.e. on termination of scheme is not at all sustainable nor such proof of having issued notice in that behalf received by the complainants has been produced on record by the UTI. On both counts, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Commission in this case is not warranted or called for as order under appeal i.e. the impugned order cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 17th July 2012. |
