By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party for the non refund of the amount on reaching maturity.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased 100 units of Rajlakshmi Scheme of Unit Trust of India in favour of his daughter Besty Mario Tom Tellis on 27.10.1993 launched by the opposite party for the benefit of girl child. As envisaged in the scheme the complainant could have received Rs.13,000/- excluding bonus on reaching maturity. The complainant upon intimation received letter from the opposite party that the scheme was terminated in October 2000 and the termination value is Rs.2,845.65/-. The complainant was also informed of redemption scheme. The holder of the scheme is no more. The offer of the opposite party the meagre amount is absolutely a deficiency in service. The termination of the scheme unilaterally is against the principle of natural justice. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.13,000/- excluding the bonus as maturity value. The units reached maturity on 27.10.2010 and the reply sent by the opposite party on 15.09.2011 is the cause of action for this complaint. There may be an order directing the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.13,000/- and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of maturity 27.10.2010 till the realization of the amount along with cost and compensation.
3. The opposite party filed version in short it is as follows. The inception of the complainant's daughter in the Rajalakshmi Scheme run by the opposite party is admitted. Under section 19 and 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act the board of trustees of the UTI has power to make schemes and issue units to the public. Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme 1992 ( herein after referred to as RUS 92) was one of the scheme launched by UTI which was launched to uphold welfare of girl child. The complainant is eligible to redemption proceeds at par with all other investors of the scheme. The scheme was terminated on 30.09.2000, all the unit holders in the scheme were informed of the termination and the opposite party published bulletins apart from the news published in leading newspapers. The termination of the scheme was fully in abeyance of the provisions. The statutory provision of the UTI Act 1963 section21 empowers the opposite party to terminate the scheme launched. It is upheld in various cases by the Honorable National Commission and Apex Court of India.
4. Since the scheme was terminated on 30.09.2000 and the investments of the complainant on 01.09.2011, the investments of the complainant only crossed six completed years. The redemption amount liable to be received including the yield of 16.28% is Rs.2,845.65. The complainant is not entitled to get a claim of Rs.13,000/- in any respect. The complaint itself is based on the surmises held by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The points that are to be decided:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in refunding
the amount deposited in the scheme named Rajlakshmi?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2 :- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite party. Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 to B5 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the complainant and opposite party are also brought out in this case.
7. The dispute in issue is in respect of the non refund of the full amount on reaching maturity of the scheme launched by the opposite party. RUS 1992 is a scheme run by the opposite party. The opposite party's case is that the termination of the scheme is not unilateral it is based on the provisions which empowers the opposite party to cancel the scheme. The complainant purchased 100 units for her daughter named Besty Mario Tom Tellis who is no more. The scheme reached maturity on 27.10.2010.
8. The maturity amount as per Ext.A2 is Rs.13,000/- excluding bonus. The brochure of Rajalakshmi units scheme reinstate the amount on reaching maturity. It also consists of terms and conditions that all security investments carries market risk. The opposite party informed the complainant which is also admitted by the complainant. RUS 92 scheme was terminated in October 2000 the status of above certificate numbers is still active and termination value is Rs.2,845.65/- it is mentioned in Ext.A4.
9. The complainant is examined as PW1. It is admitted by the complainant that he did not opt for the redemption scheme. The complainant was also informed of the redemption after launching of this scheme that there is fluctuation in the market. Clause 27 in brochure avers termination conditions of the scheme that too is admitted by the complainant. The opposite party is examined as OPW1. The complainant as per the scheme is only entitled to receive the value till the date of pre-mature closure. The complainant is also informed of the pre-mature closure and investments run only for a period of six years. The contention of the opposite party is that the other investments in the above scheme is subject to market risk. Ext.B2 is the copy of the letter addressed to the complainant on 20.08.2000 stated the termination of the scheme. It also elucidates that no interest or bonus shall be paid for any period thereafter. Clause 27 of the scheme provides the pre-mature terminations. Ext.B5 is the copy of the Gazette of India which was notified in the relevant period. The termination of the scheme was on 30.09.2000. In Vijaysakthi V/s UTI and another Honorable National Commission held that the opposite party's termination of the scheme cannot be attributed as deficiency in service. The Honorable Supreme Court of India also upheld the termination of the Rajlakshmi Scheme which is absolutely as per the provisions of the Act of UTI. The opposite party also reiterated that the complainant is entitled to receive the value till the date of terminations of the scheme and the amount as per this is Rs.2845.65/-.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to Cost and Compensation.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29th March 2012.
Date of Filing:11.11.2011.
