IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member <br /> CC 73 and 74/2010 DATED 17.05.2010<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 73/2010 Vasudev Raghavendra Vellur, <br /> Complainant in CC 74/2010 Smt. Vanita Vasudev Vellur,<br /> Both complainants are R/at No.453, <br /> 6th Main, First Cross, Ramakrishna Nagar, H Block, Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties in both cases are same. 1. The Chairman, Unit Trust of India, UTI Towers GN Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, <br /> Mumbai-400051.<br /> 2. The General Manager, Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd., No.1-90/2/10/E, Narayani Mansion, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints in CC 73 and 74/2010 : 01.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of OP in both the cases : 01.04.2010<br /> Date of order : 17.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding in CC 73 and 74/10 : 1 MONTH 17 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants are husband and wife and the opposite parties are common in both the cases. Most of the facts and the contentions of the parties, are same. Hence, for convenience, both the cases are being disposed by the commoner order.<br /> <br /> 2. The grievances of the complainants in both the cases in substance are, firstly that there is delay in making payment of the UTI ULIP Policy amount and secondly, NAV of maturity date was not taken into consideration, when the complainants submitted their policies. Hence, the complainants have sought the amount detailed therein, which includes compensation and cost of the proceedings. The complainants have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents.<br /> <br /> 3. On the other hand, for the opposite parties one S.Vincent Jayapal has appeared before the Forum with authorization letter and filed his version cum affidavit. Certain allegations particularly deficiency in service, is denied. It is contended that purchase request was sent by the complainants to improper address and there was no valid tender for redemption as on the date. <br /> <br /> 4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties in person and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, we have to consider, whether both or any one of the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the all or any of the opposite parties and that they are entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. For the following reasons, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The fact that, the respective complainants invested certain amount in the UTI ULIP policies, is admitted. Hence, details of the same need not be noted here.<br /> <br /> 8. So far concerned to the complainant in CC 73/2010, it is alleged that, the policy was to be matured on 02.01.2008 and hence, on 15.11.2007 itself by registered post sent, the redemption request to UTI Technology Ltd., The UTI informed, maturity amount to the complainant along with objection of want of bank particulars. On the same day, the particulars were forwarded. In both cases, it is alleged that, in spite of sending redemption request, there was no response and about a dozen times, the complainants telephoned, but no response. In the meanwhile, after coming to know that, finance center was recently opened at Mysore, again particulars were submitted. After hectic follow-up, on 12.03.2008 the cheques were sent. <br /> <br /> 9. Opposite parties mainly contend that, complainants made request to improper address. It is stated so, contending that the earlier UTI register was ceased and the scheme in question was transferred to second opposite party, w.e.f. 28.11.2007 and that fact was published in the newspapers. In this connection, firstly it is relevant to note that, on 15.11.2007 itself the complainant sent redemption request to the concerned authorities, whereas, as contended by the opposite parties, the second opposite party came into effect from 28.11.2007. Hence, as rightly submitted by the complainants, they could not have come to know on 15.11.2007 itself regarding change of agency. Hence, in this regard, no fault could be found with the complainants. Moreover, as contended, after agency was ceased, the earlier one, in the usual business course, could have forwarded the redemption letters of the complainants to the present second opposite party. Further more, the concerned authority even did not attend to the telephone calls of the complainants. Apart from all, even after complying of requirements including submission of the bank particulars, in sending the cheques, the delay is nearly a month. This in-ordinate delay is not explained much less satisfactorily.<br /> <br /> 10. As regards, the maturity value, the opposite parties contend the rate of NAV as on 11.02.2008 was applicable and that has been granted. But, as noted above, well prior to the date of maturity, request letter was sent by the complainants to the authorized proper person and thereafter, as contended said authority came to be ceased and the agency was transferred to second opposite party. But, for that the complainants cannot be made responsible.<br /> <br /> 11. From the records, further contentions are put forth that after about several months, the second opposite party demanded to refund certain amount narrated in the documents and stated in the complaints, it is not legal and valid and that was done only because the complainants complained and took up the matter with SEBI, Finance Ministry, Prima Minister and President of India. Also, it is submitted by the complainants that, in fact excess amount has been already recovered.<br /> <br /> 12. Considering the facts and the material on record, the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, particularly second opposite party and considering the amount claimed by the complainants under different head, we feel it just to award lumpsum compensation which will meet the ends of justice. <br /> <br /> 13. Accordingly, we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are partly allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. The second opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant in CC 73/2010 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant in CC 74/10 within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> <br /> 3. Further, second opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants towards cost of the proceedings. <br /> <br /> 4. The original order shall be kept in CC 73/2010 and the Xerox copy in CC 74-2010.<br /> <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 17th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />