BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 12.08.2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 118/2016
Complainant: 1. Miss.Laxmi D/o Rudrayya Salimath,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Student,
R/o: Nagappa Katti, Extension Area,
Tq & Dist: Bagalkoti.
(Rep By.Shri V.N.Hiremath. Adv)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1. The Zonal Manager,
UTI, Infrastructure technology & Service Limited, Shop No-4, Ground Floor, Sona Chamber,124, Club Road, Hubli-580029.
2. The Managing Director,
UTI AMC Limited,
UTI Tower,GN Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East,
Mumbai-51.
(Rep By.Shri D.T.Hebbar. Adv)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.1,26,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of maturity of the policy till realization along with Rs; 3,00,000/- towards compensation and to order for cost and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the complainant is that, the complainant father for the benefit of the complainant on 5/7/1997 had invested a sum of Rs;10,500/- under RajLaxmi Unit Plan (II) bearing Membership No.307980070000096 to be matured after 18 years with the respondent. At the time of investment the complainant was minor and was aged about 2 years. Till maturity there is no provisions for withdrawal and only the complainant shall withdraw the amount in person after surrendering the original bond. In the month of nov.2014 the father of the complainant made enquiry in the office of Resp.No.1 during that time it was informed the above said bond is not in the name of the complainant and is in some others name. Immediately on 7/11/2014 RTI application was given to the PIO, the manager of UTI branch; Hubli office asking some particulars with regard to the complainants bond. As per the reply Dtd 19.11.2014 to the RTI application, it states the above said certificate is in the name of one Sudha Hattikatagi represented by Shekhaprappa Hattikatagi and it was not in the name of the complainant. Then the respondent told the said matured policy was sent to Sudha Hattikatagi and she got encashed it. The non settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint against the respondent praying for the relief as sought.
In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed detailed written version, taking contention that the very complaint is false and frivolous and concocted and not tenable either on law or on facts, and pray for dismissal of the same. Among such other admissions and denial the answering respondent revealed the scheme of RajLaxmi unit plan investment and its benefits in detail. Further the answering respondent reveals in detail the amount invested by the complainant and benefits will be accrued and amount payable after maturity in detail. Further the answering respondent averred during the period 1998 – 2003 as market condition of the product drastically changed steps taken towards globalization of the economy and proper steps was taken due to sharp decline in the domestic interest rates, which drastically dropped to 8% to 11% in the year 2002-2003. Hence as per the direction the said scheme was redeemed the investors were intimated accordingly individually and by gazette and national paper wide publications. Accordingly RUP II converted to ARS bonds with effect from 31/3/2004 hence there is no question of sending annual statement to the investors. Thereafter during the conversion of the bond oversightly the migration data stood in the name of the complainant inadvertently migrated under ID No. 15490496 stood in the name of Sudha Hattikatagi. Accordingly respondent have received redemption of the said bond on 3/3/2004 from Sudha Hattikatagi and the same was received by her. Accordingly she got en-cashed it wrongly. Thereafter under cheque No.745219 dtd. 10/6/2016 a sum of Rs:45,413.8/- was issued in favour of complainant towards repurchase of amount with interest at 6.06% p.a. for the period between foreclosure dtd. 1.4.2004 till 14/6/2016. And was informed along with letter 20/8/2015 the RUP II was foreclosed on 31/3/2004. Hence it stopped earning interest with effecting from 1/4/2004. Prior to 2015 the complainant never approached the respondent for redemption of investment made by her. It is the primary duty of the complainant to keep track of investment and performance of the scheme. The respondents have communicated through publications advertisement given in newspapers. Hence the respondents are not liable to pay any interest or damages as claimed. As the respondents have not committed any deficiency of service in turn prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
The complainant and respondents admits evidence affidavit relied on documents. Apart from argument both have filed notes of arguments. Respondents relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- In affirmative
- In affirmative
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant has invested amount in Raj Laxmi Unit plan (II) RUP (II) (clause XI). Scheme with the respondent.
Now the question to be determined is, non-settlement of the claim by the respondent as per RUP (II) certificate amounts to deficiency in service. If so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
The crux of the case to be determine whether the respondent have redeemed the RUP(II) w.e.f.31/3/2004 thereon the respondents are not liable to pay the interest on the payable amount.
As discussed supra in brief whether the respondents have foreclosed the RUP (II) bond is to be looked into. The respondents mainly in support of their contention of foreclosure of bonds w.e.f. 31/3/2004 have relied on Xerox copy of Ex.R-1 to R-3. In reply to this the LC for complainant argued though LC for complainant objected for xerox copy of R-1 to 3 further submits there is no mentioning of RUP (II) bond in EX.R-1 and 2 paper publication where in it specifically 7 items have been shown but there is no mentioning of RUP (II) bond hence contended RUPII bonds have not been foreclosed. So the complainant is entitle for the amount as per Ex.C-2 RUP (II) bond. RUP (II) is foreclosed w.e.f., 31/3/2004. Subsequently converted to ARS bonds. While carrying migration data from erstwhile register investment against RUP (II) certificate of complainant was inadvertently migrated to the name of Sudha Hattikatagi as such as per redemption claim was settled to her and she got encashed the same. Thereby the respondents contended there is no deficiency in service on their part in non-settling the claim to the complainant.
While it is the case of the complainant that Complainant is the beneficiary and holder of Ex.C-2 RUP(II)bond . Rs;10,500/- was invested on 05/07/1997 when the complainant was minor aged about 2-3 years by her father for her benefit which to be matured on 03/07/2015. Further LC argued it is of one time investment so the complainant need not have track of investment and performance of the scheme. Hence she approached the respondent for payment of the amount only after its maturity ,ie.., after 3/7/2015 during that time she came to know that the said bond was not in her name and it has been settled to some one else i.e. to Sudha Hattikatagi. Thereby the respondents have committed deficiency of service, for that complainant is not responsible. Further argued since her bond has not been redeemed as contended by the respondent w.e.f. f31/3/2004 she is entitle for entire amount, as per the bond Ex.C-1 RUP(II).
In all and in reply to the contention and argument of the complainant respondent argued due to the drastic change in the market and due to sharp decline in the domestic interest rates bonds were foreclosed w.e.f 31/3/2004 and were made over to ARS bonds. In support of this contention the respondents relied on RP 2828/2007 NCDRC Vijay Shakti V/s Unit Trust of India Dtd. 22/11/2011 ; R.P 3956/2011 NCDRC Nitika Sharma V/S UTI & Others Dtd. 3/4/2012 and RP 1233/2014 NCDRC ,Rama Walia V/S U.T.I and another Dtd. 10/4/2016 and submits in view of the above judgments the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service and not liable to pay amount as per the bonds and also interest and cost as claimed by the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint contending that they have rightly foreclosed the Bonds.
On the basis of pleadings, evidence documents relied and also on looking into the citations relied by the respondents no where it is came out Raj Laxmi Unit plan II RUP(II) has been foreclosed. And also it is not coming forth the citations relied by the respondent is also includes to Raj Laxmi Unit plan II also. The respondents except contending orally not produced any documents to establish their contention that foreclosure includes to RAJ Laxmi Unit plus (II) bond also. In the absence of so there is no option but to accept the contention of the complainant that the foreclosure of bonds do not includes Raj Laxmi Unit plan(II) also. If in the event the respondent did not relied on Ex.R-1 to R-3 paper advertisement publishing 7 items with regard to foreclosure then this Forum would have accept the contention of the respondent and also the judgment relied by the respondents . In the absence of documentary evidence, contention of the respondent with regard to foreclosure of Raja Laxmi Unit plan also w.e.f. 31/3/2004 is not acceptable.
As rightly pointed out supra now it has to be determine for what amount the complainant is entitle ? ;
As per Ex.C-2 schedule attach to Ex.C-1 bond as per schedule Ex.C-2 the entry age of the complainant to the scheme fell between 2-3 years. As per table 1 of schedule Ex.C-2 for the said age group locking period is 18 years. For the said category if the investment is Rs;1,500/- the maturity amount will be Rs;15,000/- after 18 years. As per Ex.C-1 bonds maturity dtd is 3.7.2015 complainant invested an amount of Rs;10,500/- So after 18 years the maturity amount will be Rs;1,05,000/- The present running age of the complainant is about 21 years .i.e., 18+3. hence the complainant is entitle for additional amount i.e., Rs;,1,05,000 + Rs;;17,500/- = Rs;1,22,500/-
It is also the case of the respondent that since the Raj Laxmi unit plan was foreclosed effecting from 31/03/2004, thereafter benefits and interest on the said amount stopped as such respondents are not liable to pay any damages or interest on it. Further it is also the case of the complaint in view of the foreclosure of the bond they calculated the amount and arrived Rs;45,413.8 /- and drawn cheque for the said amount on 10/6/2006. towards repurchase of amount along with interest at 6.6% p.a. for the period between foreclosure 1.4.2004 till 14.6.2016 & intimated vide through letter dtd. 20.8.2015 but the complainant did not accepted. The said amount was paid subsequent to filing of this complaint before this Forum i.e. after 12/05/2016. As there was no foreclosure of the bond as said by the respondent the complainant rightly refused to accept it. There is no fault on the part of complainant, because the complainant is entitle for the entire amount as it is as is it not foreclosed and complainant accordingly entitle for Rs;1,22,500/- .
As per the Ex.C-1 the bond matured on 03/07/2015. As per the own admission of the respondent while migrating the RUP bonds amount to ARS bond the complainant account was migrated someone else account i.e. Sudha Hattikatagi. So for all these days the complainant made all attempts to secure the same but not obtained. Nor respondent settle the same instead the respondent made the complainant to approach this Forum. Hence the complainant is entitle for the claim amount for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly.
Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is partly allowed against respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs1,22,500/- towards the bond amount along with Rs;3,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs;1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same the respondents shall pay the amount with interest at 9% p.a. thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 12th of August 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
GDB
