Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2222

SHIVANI GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UINT TRUST OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RAM BHARGAVA

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2475 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 12.10.2010 passed in C.C.No.24/2010 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

KU. POORVI GARG D/O DR. VIJAY GARG,

R/O DUSSHERA MAIDAAN,

DISTRICT-UJJAIN (M.P.)                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA,

    13, SIR VITTHALDAS THAKARSI MARG,

    NEW MARINE LINE,

    MUMBAI

 

2. SPECIFIED UNDERTAKING O THE

    UNIT TRUST OF INDIA,

    UTI TOWER, GENERAL BLOCK,

    BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST)

    MUMBAI.                                                                                                  …. RESPONDENTS.   

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 07.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.362/2012 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

AKSHI BANSAL D/O SHRI MAHESH BANSAL                                      … APPELLANT.

                   Versus

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ANOTHER                                                    …. RESPONDENTS

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2039 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 28.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.297/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

KU. PRIYANSHI GARG D/O SHRI AJAY GARG                                    … APPELLANT.

                   Versus

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ANOTHER                                                    …. RESPONDENTS

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2040 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 28.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.04/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

SMRITI GARG D/O SHRI VINOD GARG                                                … APPELLANT.

                   Versus

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ANOTHER                                                    …. RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

-2-

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2222 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 28.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.101/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

SHIVANI GOYAL D/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL                           … APPELLANT.

                   Versus

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ANOTHER                                                    …. RESPONDENTS

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2223 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 28.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.295/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain)

 

SURBHI GARG D/O SHRI RAJESH KUMAR GARG                              … APPELLANT.

                   Versus

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ANOTHER                                                    …. RESPONDENTS

 

                    

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Shri B. K. Sanghi and Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants/complainants.

           Shri Uday Palnitkar, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 11.10.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:    

         

                   Aforesaid six appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order as common point involved in all the matters.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.2475/2010 unless otherwise stated.  

 

-3-

2.                This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.24/2010 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

3.                The case of the complainant is such that she and her four well-wishers purchased 5500 unit @ Rs.10/- per unit under the scheme ‘Rajlaxmi Unit Scheme-1992’ and deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 31.12.1992, 04.01.1993, 20.10.1993 and 29.10.1993 respectively. Under the said scheme the amount invested in favour of child is irrevocable in nature and can be claimed only by the child on completion of lock in period. As per the certificates issued by the opposite parties, the date of maturity is mentioned as 20.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 31.12.2009 and 04.01.2010. It is alleged that the opposite parties even after maturity period i.e on completion of 20 years of age, failed to pay the respective amounts which comes to Rs.6,86,250/-. Finally, registered notices dated 26.12.2009 and 10.01.2010 through Advocate were also sent but despite service of notice the amount was not paid. The complainant therefore filed complaint seeking sum of Rs.6,86,250/- along with interest and costs.

4.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that under Sections 19 and 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, the Board of Trustees of the UTI had power to make schemes and issue units to the public. Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme,1992 (RUS-92) was one such plan launched by the UTI and it is subject to its provisions. The scheme provided for investment in the name of a female child upto the age of 5 years and maturing after a lock-in-period of 16 to 20 years.

-4-

The scheme did not promise any particular percentage of return but indicated an implicit return varying between 16.16% to 16.75% on an annualized basis. The said scheme was terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2000. The termination of scheme was in exercise of statutory powers and powers under a statutory scheme framed under Section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 and there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. The said scheme provides for premature termination, which is evident from Clause XXVII of the Scheme. The information for termination of the scheme was sent to all the unit holders including the complainant. The complaint is based on surmises and assumptions without any base or proof. The complainant has been paid redemption proceeds in accordance with the Provisions of the Plan and as per the entitlement of the complainant and no amount, towards redemption, is due to be paid to the complainant.  The complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation.  The scheme was terminated on 30.09.2000 whereas the complaint was filed on 21.01.2010 i.e. after more than 9 years from the date of termination. The claim of the complainant that the opposite parties have not paid the full amount is denied and is erroneous. The allegation of the complainant that she has to be paid Rs.6,86,250/- towards amount of redemption proceeds, is not correct. It is not clear as top how the complainant has arrived at the said figure. It is therefore prayed that since the complaint is pure frivolous and vexatious, it is liable to be dismissed with a fine of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the opposite parties.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

-5-

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the while terminating the scheme, the respondents have committed deficiency in service and the District Commission has also committed grave error in not allowing the complaint and directing the respondents to pay the amount as claimed by the appellant. He further argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity in not appreciating the fact that due amount has not been paid to the complainant/appellant after the Unit Certificates attaining maturity. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust Vs Mohanlal (2010) 1 SCC 512, Bhupendranath Hazarika & Anr Vs State of Assam & Ors. 2013 LAB. I. C. 1375, Hamza Hazi Vs State of Kerala and Another (2006) 7 SCC 416, A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs Govt. of A. P. and Others (2007) 4 SCC 221 and UCO Bank Vs Hem Chandra Sarkar (1990) 3 SCC 389.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents argued that the Unit Trust of India as per provision in the scheme terminated the scheme in the interest of the consumers. The opposite parties/respondents had already made payment of Rs.1,64,296.26 through cheques as termination amount. The complainant/appellant is not eligible for Rs.6,86,250/- as maturity amount as alleged and claimed, as opposite parties have already issued cheques towards termination proceeds due and payable to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on opposite parties’ part.

 

-6-

9.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that in exercise to the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, the Board of Trustees of the Unit Trust of India makes the plan under the name and style “Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme,1992” (RUS-92) came into force on 2^nd day of October,1992 and published in Gazette of India on April 17,1993 (Annexure-C). Clause XXVII of the said scheme provides for termination of the scheme at the discretion of the Trust.  Clause XXVII of the said scheme reads as follows:

                   XXVII Termination of the Scheme

“The Scheme may if circumstances so prevail not being in the interest of the unitholders or the Trust be terminated with sufficient notice to the Government. All unitholders who have participated in the Scheme shall be paid the value of the units standing to their credit at the final repurchase price fixed for the purpose. Besides receiving the final repurchase price so determined no further benefit of any kind either by way of increase in the repurchase value or by way of dividend for any subsequent period shall accrue. The unit certificate reserved for repurchase shall be retained for cancellation.”

 

10.               From the above examination, it is lucidly clear that there was a provision in the original scheme for closure of the scheme RUS-92 and the scheme has been closed w.e.f.30.09.2000.  General Public Notice regarding termination/closure of the scheme was also published in monthly bulletins of Unit Trust of India. Thus we find that the scheme RUS-92 has been closed under the provisions given in the original notification published in Gazette dated 17.04.1993 (Annexure-C) regarding which relevant approvals and permission were also obtained.

 

-7-

11.               The scheme is obviously framed by the Board of the Trust in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 21 about which there is no dispute. Sub-section(3) of Section 21 gives the power to the Board from time to time add to or otherwise amend any scheme made section 21 of the UTI Act. Clause XXVII of the scheme enables for premature termination of the scheme. Therefore, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the UTI Act, and clause XXVII of the scheme, the action of termination cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction.

12.               Even otherwise the scheme in question was terminated on 30.09.2000 and therefore the cause of action arose on that date itself, however, this complaint filed on 22.01.2010 is hopelessly barred by limitation. From the legal notices dated 26.12.2009 and 10.01.2010 sent by the appellant’s advocate to the respondents, it is apparent that the appellant’s father had already received the amount of units, however, this fact was not disclosed by the complainant/appellant in her complaint. Even otherwise on termination of scheme, from the Annexure-F dated 03.02.2010, it is obvious that on 09.08.2001 redemption amount vide different cheques for different certificates were already sent to the complainant/appellant at her address, which was received by her. Details of which are given below:

Certificate No.	Cheque No.	Date	Amount (Rs)
R941027005686	RA00010111 RA00010112	09/08/2001	28329.55
R941027005689	RA00010096 RA00010097	09/08/2001	28329.55
R941027009987	RA00010115	09/08/2001	19762.16
R941027009991	RA00010105	09/08/2001	22585.33
R931027006835	RA00010116 RA00010117	09/08/2001	33085.00
R931027011249	RA00010113 RA00010114	09/08/2001	32204.67

 

                   It is not the case of the complainant/appellant that she did not receive the same. In rebuttal also she did not file any document.

13.               In the similar facts and circumstances in a case related to the same RUS-92 scheme, this Commission in Appeal No.275/2001 (Unit Trust of India Vs Dr. Abhishek Verma) decided on 02.07.2001 after referring the decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts, Kerala, Andhara Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Bombay (Bench-Nagpur) has held that termination of the scheme was legal and valid and in exercise of statutory powers.

14.               The Unit Trust of India in exercise to the powers conferred under Section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, has terminated the scheme in the interest of investors as per provision clause XXVII of the scheme. The Unit Trust of India after termination of the scheme was not obliged to continue the scheme or in default of performance was not liable to pay compensation.

15.               So far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, these are clearly distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case. In none of those judgments, it has been mentioned that even when there is a provision for termination in the scheme and the UTI while terminating the scheme has committed deficiency in service.

 

 

-9-

16.               In the above circumstances, we find that the opposite parties/respondents have not committed any deficiency in service for termination of the scheme RUS-92 as per provision in the original scheme.

17.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Commission which calls for any interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the respondent Unit Trust of India is directed to extend all the benefits, if any, which the appellant is entitled consequent on the termination of the RUS-92 scheme.

18.               This order be placed in First Appeal No.2475/2010 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.199/2014, 2039/2016, 2040/2016, 2222/2019 and 2223/2019.

           

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey) (D. K. Shrivastava)

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member