DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.07.2023

PER:   SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainants have filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against  the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant was invested some amount in the UTI (Unit Trust of India) under CGGF scheme bearing No. 200001130015136 in the year 27.01.1997. The said certificate was matured on 27.1.2018. After the maturity the complainant went to the local office of the O.P.No.1 to enquire about the procedure and how to release the amount. But the staff of the local unable to give any data and advised the complainant to approach the Bhubaneswar office. On telephonic conversation he got the e-mail ID and they asked the complainant to send the detail of the scheme. Accordingly the complainant sent the details of the scheme through e-mail. After getting the same they replied that the scheme was already closed in the year 2003 and they have already send the amount through cheque to the savings account of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant enquired about such deposit by the O.Ps. On enquiry the bank officials given a detail statement of the savings account of the relevant period, but no such payment was made to the complainant by the O.Ps. Thereafter the complainant made telephone calls to the office of the O.P. for getting back his amount, but the official of the O.P. behaved rudely to the complainant. At last the complainant again sends a message to the O.P. through e-mail. After receipt of the mail, they sent three telephone numbers and asked the complainant to register his complaint through those telephone numbers. The complainant tried to contact through those numbers, out of the three numbers two numbers are ringing but nobody responded and other number is always occupied. It is very difficult on the part of the complainant to lodge his claim and get back his amount. The complainant is entitled to get back his amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interests from the O.P. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

3. The O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging non receipt of maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of Unit Certificate No.200001130015136 for 700 units CGGF-1986 scheme and thereby prayed the Hon’ble Forum to direct the O.Ps to return the deposit amount along with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- mental agony to the complainant. The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. As per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. The redemption cheque had been sent to the complainant to the year 2004, whereas the complaint has been filed by the complainant in the year 2018 i.e. after whopping gap of 14 years. The law laid down under Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is very clear that complaint can be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP adduced that, the scheme CGGF-99 was a gift to a child below 15 years of age. The amount invested once by way of a gift, the donor cannot stake claim on the gift amount. The investment matures when the child attains 21 years of age. As per provisions of the scheme that, the gift once made in the name of a child, it cannot be touched by anybody including the parents of the child.

Due to the Repealing Act and by virtue of the powers conferred to the Administrator, the OP has decided to foreclose the Scheme CGGF along with 6 other schemes w.e.f. 01.04.2004. accordingly, the Ops has sent brochure option letter on 15.12.2003 by post to the all the unit holder at their last available recorded address intimate to them about the option either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to 6.60% tax free ARS bonds guaranteed by govt. of India. When no option form is received from the investors up to 16.02.2004, the ARS bonds issued in lieu of the investment under the said scheme and the same was notified in the News Papers (Annexure B). The complainant has not come out with clean hands and suppressed the material facts that he had applied for foreclosure/termination amount in the year 2004 and accordingly the redemption amount of Rs.11,263.80 sent to the complainant vide cheque No. 300624 dated 01.04.2004 which stands paid on 02.06.2004.

The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.Ps and restored to file this vexatious complaint before the Hon’ble Commission with false claims. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.  On the date of hearing we heard argument. We have gone through the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record. The complainant filed this case on 12.12.2018. There is a gap of more than 14 years the complainant filed this case. As per settled principle of law this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a time barred dispute. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India v. M/s B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) in Civil Appeal No.;2067 of 2002 passed the judgment on 20.03.2009 (Reportable) that:- “it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.”

In the result we dismissed the complaint as time bared.

            The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

            A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

           The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 10.07.2023.