The order dated 23.12.94 in C.P. Case No. 2(S) of 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong is assailed in this appeal.

 

 

The Unit Trust of India launched a scheme named and styled as Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 under section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963. The scheme was aimed at meeting the social and economic needs of the women in the country to invest in this scheme by any person on behalf of a girl child not exceeding the age of 5 years of age which could be repurchased by the child on completion of lock-in period. The Appellant-Unit Trust of India – issued a brochure and pamphlet at the time of launching of the scheme. Some of the Relevant clauses as published in the brochure are extracted below:-

 

“ 1. The Scheme:

       The Scheme provides for an investment that will grow 21 times in 20 years. Thus 1000/- invested in the name of a female child below the age of one year will become Rs.21,000/- after 20 years and Rs.10,000/- will become Rs.21 lakhs. Depending upon the age of the child for whom the investment is made, the maturity value will vary from a minimum of Rs.11,000/- to Rs.21,000/- as shown below:-

 

Entry age                                   Minimum                          Maturity on

(in years)                                   Amount                             Completion of

                                                                                            20 years.

 

Upto and including Rs.1000/-                                            Rs.21,000/-

Above 1 to 2                                                                       Rs.18,000/-

Above 2 to 3                                                                       Rs.15,000/-

Above 3 to 4                                                                       Rs.13,000/-

Above 4 to 5                                                                       Rs.11,000/-

 

            The maturity value will be given only to the beneficiary. Till then nobody can touch it. It is thus an irrevocable gift.

 

2.      Bonus:

In addition to the above, the Trust may periodically declare bonus which shall be payable on maturity. Consequently the ultimate return could be still higher.

 

3.      Special Incentive:

Further, there is a very special inventive for those female children who join the scheme during the months of October, November and December, 1992. The special incentive (payable on maturity) will be as under:-

 

                  (i) Rs.1000/- for every investment or Rs.1000/- if the age of the female child

                      Is not exceeding 2 years.

 

                  (ii) Rs.750/- for every investment of Rs.1000/- if the age of the female child is above 2 and upto 5 years.

                                         ………..”

The respondent-complainant applied for 2000 numbers of Unit Certificates under the scheme in question in the name of his daughter Miss. Ambika Agarwal in pursuance advertisement published in various newspapers as well as on the basis of the brochure. The Unit Certificate No. R9320 17000 602 dated 29.10.92 under the Scheme was issued to the Respondent under the signature of the Chairman of the Unit Trust of India and the Executive Trustee of the Unit Trust of India- the appellants No.1 and 2 of the appeal indicating the date of maturity of the certificate as 30.10.2008, which was received by the respondent-complainant in the month of April, 1993. According to the complainant-respondent that the Unit Certificate in question did not contain the mention of “The Special Incentives” as referred in Clause No.3 of the brochure. According to the complainant, during the month of June,1993, i.e., namely after 7 months from the date of issue of the Certificate, the complainant received an unsigned letter dated 13.3.93 sent by the Branch Manager of Unit Trust of India of Guwahati, which according to the complainant, contained unilateral change/postponement of date of maturity from 30.10.2008 to 29.10.2009. According top the complainant, it is a departure from the terms and conditions of the advertisement and clauses 1, 3 etc. of the brochure. An extract of the letter dated 13.3.1993 is called down below:-

 

“……….

      We thank you for investing in our Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme. We would like to mention that through a slip up in the programming, an error has crept in and as a result, instead of taking the date of acceptance/tending of application as the base for calculating the date of maturity, the date of birth of child has been taken as the base. In respect of the unit certificate sent to you, please note the correct date of maturity is 20/10/2009.

 

Secondly, the maturity amount printed on the unit certificate does not include the special incentive amounting to Rs.15000.00. This incentive amount will be paid at the time of maturity over and above the amount printed on the Unit Certificates. There is also a provision of Bonus which will be announced periodically but payable on maturity. Therefore, the actual maturity amount will be more than what is indicated in the certificate.

 

We are sorry for the inconvenience caused to you in the matter. You may please attach this letter to the unit certificate for record and reference.

 

Thank you and look forward to your continued support.

                                                                                         ………..”

 

The complainant being aggrieved presented a complaint before the District Forum challenging the action of the appellants of changing the dates of maturity date of the certificates from 30.10.2008 to 29.10.2009 as arbitrary, whimsical, malafide and inoperative, etc. The complainant avvered that the date of maturity of the certificate should be calculated from the date of birth of the child and not from the date of acceptance/tendering of the application as the base for calculating the date of maturity. According to the complainant the date o maturity should coincide with the date of child’s attaining the age of 20 years and according to the complainant, is the basis of the claim. The complainant also stated that he invested the amount for the benefit of his girl child, under the impression created by the scheme and understanding that the date of maturity shall be the date of child’s attaining the age of 20 years, based on the materials supplied by the Unit Trust of India. It was also avvered that the respondents have admitted about the entitlement of special inventives of Rs.15,000/- due to the petitioner but the respondents are not agreeing to reflect the same in the Unit Certificates No.9320 17000 602 dated 29.10.93 thus forcing the complainant to keep a separate record for it and thereby causing hardship to the complainant for the lapse of Unit Trust of India. The appellant-opposite party submitted his version of the case before the Forum. He pleaded that the scheme in question is one of the various schemes of the Trust Under Section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act,1963 by the Board of Trustees and is governed in terms of the provisions drawn up for the said purpose with its amendment from time to time. The Appellant admitted the contents of the brochure that the Unit would be issued subject to the provisions of the Rajalakshmi Unit Scheme. It is also admitted that the tabulation is correct in all respects. The appellant avvered that the entire scheme is formulated in terms of Section 21 of the Act. Once the provisions and scheme is approved by the Board of Trustees appointed under the Act, the scheme is required to be notified in the Gazette of India. Any amendment/modifications are also similarly, required to be notified in the official gazette. According to the complainant the appellant has described the working of the scheme, which is mentioned below:-

 

“How the scheme works:-

       The Scheme envisages a minimum of Rs.1,000/- which will be invested by any adult. , or person as mentioned hereinbefore in favour of a girl child who is not exceeding 5 years of age. Depending upon the age of a child while entering the scheme, the lock-in-period will be for a minimum of 16 years and the maturity amount may vary from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.21,000/- as per the chart given below:-

 

 

                           

There will be special incentive for those female children who join the scheme during the first three months, October, November, December,1992. For those female children who fall in the lock- in – period of 19 and 20 years category, an incentive payment of Rs.1,000 peer every Rs.1,000/- of investment will be payable at the time of maturity. Those children falling in the other three categories (i.e. lock-in-period of 16, 17 and 18 years) shall receive an incentive payment of Rs.750/- every 1000/- of investment, payable at the time of maturity.”

 

The appellant admitted that the word “age” which was mentioned erroneously in the brochure is the cause of ambiguity and to overcome this the appellants have withdrawn all the forms so printed and issued fresh forms clearly indicating that the period is ‘lock-in-period’ and not the ‘age’ as presumed by the esteemed investors. Depending on the age the lock-in-period differs from 20 maximum to 16 minimum. Thus appellants have admitted that there was a printing error and that error was sought to be rectified, and thereafter got rectified as ‘lock-in-period’. The Appellants specifically have stated that the aforesaid printing error cannot override the provisions of the scheme prepared under the Act. The Appellants further stated that, even otherwise, if one reads the brochure as a whole there cannot be the question of any ambiguity.