1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.4000/- each under CGGF Scheme of UTI in the year 1997 in the name of his daughters, Mamali Dash and Sonali Dash who were twins and teenagers then and the Ops issued 2 certificates, one in the name of Mamali Dash vide Certificate No.202980030000889 and another in the name of Sonali Dash vide Certificate No. 202980030000890 dt.31.10.1997.  It is submitted that the Ops prematurely closed the scheme and issued Cheque bearing No.397477 dt.16.5.2014 for Rs.9404/- and another cheque bearing No.377301 dt.16.5.2014 for Rs.3102/- in favour of Mamali Dash against ID No.212324035 (ARS Bond) and similarly issued cheque bearing No.397478 dt.16.5.2014 for Rs.9404/- and No.377302 dt.16.5.2014 for Rs.3102/- in the name of Sonali Dash against ID No.212324051 (ARS Bond).  It is submitted that the applications under the scheme for both the bond holders were made by their father when they were hardly one year old and hence by putting their fond names, the proposals were sent and the Ops had issued certificates accordingly.  Subsequently, at the time of their admission in the school the name of Mamali and Sonali were changed to Aradhana Dash and Abhyarthana Dash respectively for which the cheques issued by the Ops could not be realized.  The complainant submitted that he requested to Ops along with relevant documents to issue fresh cheques in the name of Aradhana Dash and Abhyarthana Dash but the Ops did not revert.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to issue cheques with updated interest in the name of Aradhana Dash and Abhyarthana Dash or in the name of the complainant and to pay suitable compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter contending that unit certificates under CGGF Scheme vide Nos.202980030000889 and 202980030000890 were held in favour of Mamali Dash and Sonali Dash respectively for 400 units each and after foreclosure of the scheme, the same were converted to ARS Bond Certificate Nos.36997621 & 36997630 bearing ID Nos.212324035 & 212324051 for 94 bonds each issued in favour of the bond holders.  After maturity, the cheques were sent to the holders in their registered names as the complainant had not followed the procedural requirements for change of names of holders in the record of UTI.  Further it is contended that as per their record the cheques issued in favour of holders are still unclaimed and the complainant has filed this case without following procedures for issuance of fresh cheques in the name of Aradhana and Abhyarthana which lacks cause of action to file this case.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case investment of the complainant for his minor daughters Mamali and Sonali under CGGF Scheme in the year 1997 is an admitted fact.  It is seen that the said scheme foreclosed w.e.f. 31.3.2004 and later on the face value was converted into ARS Bond vide Certificate No.36997621 and 36997630.  Since the bond holders became major, maturity value in shape of cheques were issued to the bond holders.  The case of the complainant is that the twins were hardly one year or so and they were fondly called as Mamali and Sonali at the time of proposal.  During their admission in the school, the names of Mamali and Sonal have been registered as Aradhana Dash and Abhyarthana Dash.  According to the complainant as the changes came in their names, he requested the Ops to issue fresh cheques in their registered names but the Ops did not listen.

5.                    We have carefully perused the documents and found that no such copy of request letter of the complainant to the Ops is available on record and the complainant has not observed the formalities.  Without completing the formalities, the complainant should not expect issue of fresh cheques in the changed name of the holders.  The Ops in their counter have also prayed the Forum to direct the complainant to comply with the formalities as per data supplied by them at para-9 of their counter.  In the above circumstances, the complainant is to send the service request form duly filled in all respects and also to send supportive documents for necessary consideration of his grievance.

6.                     Further it is seen that the Ops have sent the cheques of Rs.9404/- + Rs.3102/- each dt.16.5.2014.  As the cheques have become stale as not claimed, the money is still with the Ops and certainly the said money bears interest at least at their bond rate i.e. @ 6.6% p.a.  The Ops are to be directed to pay such interest on the maturity amount in case of twin holders.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as we find no deficiency in service on their part.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.9404/- + Rs.3102/- to each bond holder with interest @ 6.6% p.a. from 16.5.2014 in the name of Aradhana Dash and Abhyarthana Dash within 30 days  from the date of receipt of necessary documents from the complainant.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)