PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
Opposite Party No.1 Unit Trust of India Technology Services Ltd. was previously known as UTI Investor Services Ltd./ Unit Trust of India Investor Services Ltd. is a Government owned Company. Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant –Vice President of Opposite Party No.1.
2) It is submitted that Mr. Kapoorchand H. Malesha, the Complainant, is the Executor to the estate of late Shri.Hastimal C. Jain. Shri Hastimal C. Jain died on 23/01/03. Prior to his death, Shri.Hastimal C. Jain had invested in the US-64 Scheme, launched by Opposite Party No.1. He had purchased total number of 4970 units (old US 64 Scheme). In the month of May, 2003, Opposite Party No.1 have converted the said 4970 units held by the deceased to 596 bonds of Rs.100 each, of 6.75% Tax-free tradable US 64 bond certificates. Opposite Party No.1 had issued 11 certificates, all dtd.01/06/03 which were redeemable/ repayable on 01/06/2008. Out of total bond issued 199 bonds were in the joint names of the deceased and Ms. Sandhya H. Jain, daughter of the deceased, 369 bonds were in the joint name with Prafulla H. Jain, son of the deceased and 28 bonds were held by the deceased singly. Out of the above mentioned 199 bonds and the 369 bonds, have been redeemed in the names of respective joint holders after many telephonic conversations and after giving to the Opposite Party a copy of the probate. However, 28 bonds which were held solely by the deceased bearing Certificate Nos.24035701 and 24035794 are yet to be redeemed. Present dispute is regarding aforesaid 28 bonds which are not yet redeemed.
3) It is averred that deceased Shri.Hastimal C. Jain expired on 23/01/03 leaving behind him a Will dtd.15/12/2002, wherein present Complainant Shri. Kapoorchand was named as one of the Executors of the said Will. The Complainant has applied for Probate of Last Will of Shri.Hastimal C. Jain in the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay by way of Testamentary Petition No.702/2004. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue Probate on the basis of the Will of deceased Hastimal to the present Complainant.
4) Smt. Vimla Hastimal Jain, widow of deceased, is sole beneficiary of aforesaid 28 bonds which were exclusively in the names of deceased. Smt.Vimala Hastimal Jain had sent letters dtd.02/07/08, 04/08/08, 02/02/09 to the Opposite Parties for releasing the said bonds, but her request is not considered by the Opposite Parties. In the written reply dtd.25/07/08, 30/07/08 and 09/03/09 Opposite Party informed Smt.Vimala Hastimal Jain that the certificate numbers are not mentioned in the probate and therefore, they can not release the same in the name of the beneficiary. All the documents asked by the Opposite Party were supplied to the Opposite Party but Opposite Parties have not redeemed the bonds. So Smt.Vimala H. Jain had sent notice through advocate dtd.21/03/09 to the Opposite Party. The Complainant had also sent letters to the Opposite Party requesting to release the money in beneficiary’s name.
5) It is submitted that when Executors applied for probate of Will, it was not possible to mention each and every certificate numbers of each investment. Hence, particular certificate numbers remained to be mentioned in the probate application. In the para no.3 (v) of the Last Will of the deceased, the US 64 units/bonds are mentioned though certificate numbers are not mentioned. In para no.8 and 12 of the Will, the residual probate Will covered and the bequeathed to Smt.Vimala H. Jain, widow of the deceased being sole beneficiary above mentioned 28 bonds the Opposite Parties have to pay and consider his requests. Therefore, the Complainant have filed this complaint and requested to direct Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant bond of Rs.2,800/- together with interest @ 21% from 01/12/2007 till realization of the amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2 Lacs for mental agony and harassment and he has also claimed cost of this proceedings. Alongwith complaint, the Complainant has produced true copy of death certificate of Shri.Hastimal C. Jain, true copy of Probate Will, copies of correspondence between the parties etc.
6) Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 were dully served with the notice by RPAD but they have not appeared before this Forum. Opposite Parties had sent reply through post but there is no verification below the reply/written statement. The name of the person who has signed reply is not mentioned in the reply. Therefore, ex-parte order was passed against the Opposite Party. The Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief and written argument. Heard Ld.Advocate Mr.Vijay Chavan for the Complainant.
7) Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has referred to the letters dtd.25/07/08, 30/07/08 and 09/03/09. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid letters, the Opposite Parties have already admitted the fact that 28 bonds in question were purchased by the deceased Shri. Hastimal C. Jain and before redemption of 28 bonds, death of Shri.Hastimal C. Jain took place. It is submitted that after death of Hastimal C. Jain, present Complainant who is one of the Executor of the Last Will of deceased Shri. Hastimal C. Jain filed testamentary Petition before the Hon’ble High Court that the Hon’ble High Court issued Probate on the basis of the Will of Shri. Hastimal C. Jain. Ld.Advocate has referred true copies of the Probate Will annexed with the complaint at Exh. ‘B’ and submitted that as per the demand made by the Opposite Parties, from time to time Complainant supplied necessary documents including of death certificate of late Hastimal and Probated Will of deceased Hastimal C. Jain. It is submitted that UTI Technology Services Ltd. – Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that certificate numbers is not mentioned in the Probate Will and kindly get the certificate numbers incorporated by the Court under its seal. It appears from the letters written by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant that Opposite Party refused to redeem 28 bonds purchased exclusively in the name of deceased mainly on the ground that certificate numbers of the said bonds are not incorporated in the Probate.
8)Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that Smt. Vimla H. Jain is sole beneficiary of the bonds as per the Last Will of Shri. Hastimal C. Jain. In the Probate US 64 units/bonds are mentioned. It was not possible to each and every certificate number as the deceased had made huge investment in various bonds. It appears that deceased Hastimal C. Jain had made investments in various companies. From Opposite Party he had purchased 4970 US 64 scheme units. Out of that the said units converted into 596 bonds. Out of 596 bonds, present dispute of 28 bonds which were solely in the name of deceased. Opposite Party had made payment in respect of rest of the bonds. In the Will there is no mention of certificate numbers so there is not mention certificate numbers in probate order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted that late Hastimal declared his Last Will on 15/12/2001. Certificates were issued by Opposite Party in June, 2003. Therefore, particulars of certificates are not mentioned in the Last Will of deceased Hastimal. Aforesaid facts are not considered by Opposite Party.
9) Ld.Advocate has further referred to Clause No.3(v) of the Probate and clause of the Will incorporated in the Probate order passed by the High Court. In the paragraph 8 of the will it is clearly stated that “I further devise and bequeath all my remaining properties whether movable or immovable as mentioned hereinabove absolutely to my wife Smt.Vimala Hastimal Jain.” In Clause No.12, it is stated that “if any of my properties are not included in this Will through over sight or otherwise, or are acquired by me hereafter, such properties shall be treated as residual properties and I devise and bequeath the same absolutely to my wife Smt.Vimala.” In the instant case, the Opposite Parties have admitted that 28 numbers of disputed US 64 bonds were in the name of deceased husband of Smt.Vimala H. Jain. Smt.Vimala H. Jain had made written several letters to the Opposite Parties to redeem the bonds in her favour. However, the Opposite Parties have rejected her request merely on technical ground that certificate numbers are not mentioned in the probate. Considering documentary evidence on record, we hold that the Opposite Parties merely on technical ground rejected prayer to redeem 28 bonds in favour of wife of deceased or to the Complainant who is Executor of the Will. Refusal of requests of 28 bonds on unjustifiable ground amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2.
10) For the reasons discussed above, we think it just to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.2,800/- of the aforesaid 28 US 64 scheme bonds to the Complainant.
11) The Complainant has prayed for interest on the aforesaid amount @ 21% p.a. on 01/12/07 till realization of entire amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has claimed interest at exorbitant rate. We think it just to direct Opposite Parties to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.2,800/- to the Complainant from 01/12/07. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Compensation claimed by the Complainant is exorbitant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it to direct Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this proceeding.
For the reasons discussed above, we pass following order –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.268/2009 is partly allowed.
ii. Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and/or severally an amount of Rs.2,800/- (Rs. Two
Thousand Eight Hundred Only) to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. on aforesaid amount from
01/12//2007 till realization of entire amount to the Complainant.
iii.Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and/or severally an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five
Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand Only) as cost of
this proceeding to the Complainant.
iv.Opposite Party shall comply with the aforesaid order within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
this order.
v.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
