Dated 07.02.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf appellant/opposite parties for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2012 passed in Complaint case no. 75 of 2011 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj whereby and whereunder appellants have been directed to make payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards surrendered unit price and further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed in complaint petition is that complainant had purchased 500 units (each unit of Rs. 10/-) under Unit Trust of India capital growth unit scheme 1992 (Master gain) on making payment of Rs. 5,000/- and surrendered his units on 29.07.2002, to Data Financial Services for which receipt was granted and thereafter complainant regularly wrote to both opposite party no. 1 and 2 for payment of surrendered unit but received no response. Complainant send legal notices to make payment of surrendered units but same was not replied as such filed consumer complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Patna.
3. Notices were issued to opposite parties but they did not appear and case proceeded ex-parte against them.
4. Complainant in support of his claim submitted acknowledgment receipt dated 29.07.2002 depositing units of Unit Trust of India capital growth unit scheme-1992 (master gain 1992) as (encl-1) Legal notices (Encl-2) and 500 units purchase of Master gain plan dated 07.05.1992 (Encl-3).
5. The District Consumer Forum after hearing complainant and considering the documents filed by him held that complainant had purchased 500 units on making payment of Rs.  4,988/- which was surrendered on 29.07.2002 but no surrendered unit amount was paid even after sending legal notices which amounts to deficiency in service of opposite parties and directed to pay the equivalent price of purchased units i.e Rs. 25 thousand and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by opposite parties.
6. It is stated on behalf of appellants that neither any legal notice nor any notice from District Consumer Forum was received by appellants as such they could not appear before District Consumer Forum. It is stated on behalf of appellants that Unit Trust of India had been set up as a statutory corporation under unit trust of India Act, 1963. Board of trustees were empowered to formulate schemes and master gain 92 was one of such scheme in which units were issued to the public. Act was repealed by an Act of parliament w.e.f 29.10.2002.
7. It is submitted on behalf of appellants that as far as payment of re-purchase amount of Rs. 25,000/- is concerned it is well known fact that investment in shares is at customer’s risk. Re-purchase amount is based on prevailing NAV at the time of repurchase.
8. Claim of complainant/respondent had already been redressed much earlier i.e in the year of 1996, 2000 and 2002. Payment was made to complainant details of which are as follows:

1. 1^st Dividend Rs. 600/- was paid to complainant vide warrant No. 20731248 dated 26.11.1996 of Central Bank of India.
2. 2^nd Dividend Rs. 750/- was paid to the complainant vide warrant No. 81210447 dated 31.03.2000 and repurchase value as per prevailing rate of NAV Rs. 4665/- (redemption) was paid vide warrant No. 36333679 dated 29.07.2002 of State Bank of India.

9. Complainant repurchased units on 29.07.2002 and complaint case was filed by the complainant in the year 2011 for payment of unit amount after lapse of 9 (nine) years, which was clearly barred by the limitation under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Perused the order as impugned in appeal and written notes of argument as  well as materials available on record
11. From materials available on record it appears that complainant invested Rs. 5,000/- in UTI scheme master gain -92 on 01.08.1992 and complainant was allotted 500 units of MG-92. Complainant on 29.07.2002 applied for repurchase of the units of master gain and complainant was paid repurchase value as per prevailing rate of NAV Rs. 4665/- on 07.08.2002 through State Bank of India. It is well known fact that investment in share is subject to market risk and repurchase amount is based on prevailing NAV at the time of repurchase which was paid to complainant in the year 2002 itself.
12. The Ld. District Consumer Forum has taken note of the fact that complainant had surrendered units on 29.07.2002 and alleges that the repurchase amount has not been paid and has filed complaint case in the year 2011 for payment of repurchase amount i.e after 9 years of cause of action as such the complaint case was hopelessly time barred and was fit to be dismissed as being time barred.
13. For the reason as stated above the judgment and order dated 28.11.2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj is neither sustainable in law nor on facts and is accordingly set aside.
14. Appeal is allowed and complaint case no. 75 of 2011 filed before the District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj is dismissed.
15. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Commission, Gopalganj by E-mail forthwith and order to be uploaded on the website of the Commission.
16.    Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                       (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                        President

Md. Fariduzzama