Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/292/2014

Amandeep Singh Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unit Trust of India - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

25 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	292 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04.06.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	25.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Amandeep Singh Kalra S/o Late Sh.Avtar Singh Kalra, # 2044, Phase-7, Mohali.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Unit Trust of India, Financial Centre, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager.

 

2]  Unit Trust of India – Asset Management Company Ltd., UTI Tower, “Gn” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the                   complainant.

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.S.K.Sharma, Counsel for OPs

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, his father availed a plan under the scheme of the Opposite Parties and a membership certificate No.34272347, dated 30.10.1989 (Ann.C-1) was issued to him as per the Unit Linked Insurance Plan, 1971.  It is stated that original membership certificate is in possession of the complainant.  The plan was for a period of 10 years and the date of maturity was 17.8.1999.  The target amount was Rs.51,000/- and Rs.5100/- was to be paid annually for 10 years. However, the nominee under the policy was late Mrs.Sukhinder Kaur i.e. mother of the complainant, who expired before the death of the father of complainant and as such, the complainant was made a nominee in the said plan and the same was duly endorsed on the policy certificate itself. Unfortunately, the father of the complainant also expired on 4.6.1999 i.e. before the maturity of the said policy (Ann.C-2).  The complainant was not aware about the said certificate.  However, when the complainant found it, he approached the Opposite Party No.1 for payment and gave written request on 23.10.2012 to Opposite Party No.2 (Ann.C-3), who informed that as per their old data base, there is no holding/unit outstanding (Ann.C-4). When the Opposite Party No.2 was again requested, it refused to pay the maturity amount on the pretext that cheques for all the maturity cases under ULIP 1971 were sent without calling for original certificates (Ann.C-5).

         Thereafter, in response to the legal notice, the Opposite Party No.2 advised the complainant to get the bank account verified for the said period for receipt of the payment and also informed that the case is beyond the data preservation period of 8 years.  The complainant verified his account, but he has not received any payment from Opposite Parties during the year 1999 or after wards.  It is averred that the act & conduct of the OPs in not paying the amount of the said membership certificate despite request amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs filed reply and submitted that they have appointed UTI Asset Management Company (AMC) Limited to manage the funds collected under the Schemes launched by UTI Mutual Fund.  It is averred that the UTI AMC has taken a decision to consolidate its investor’s services and appointed Karvy Computershare Private Limited, as the Registrar and Transfer Agent for all the Schemes and Plans of UTI including the subject Plan.  It is also averred that Karvey Computershare Private Limited has been appointed as the Registrar and Transfer Agent by UTI Mutual Fund for various schemes from the year 2008 by virtue of agreement dated 31.3.2008 (Ann.I).

         It is pleaded further that the present complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation as the cause of action arose on 4.6.99 and the complainant approached the OPs in the year 2012 i.e. 13 years after the cause of action without explaining the delay in filing the complaint. It is also pleaded that as per the Regulations of Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) with reference to Chapter-VII under Clause 50(2), the period for preserving the records is 10 years from the date of the transaction and in this case, since the transaction took place in 2000 and also there was no claim or query raised by the complainant during the period of preservation, all the records were destroyed after the completion of 10 years (Ann-III). Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The matter is established to the extent that father (now deceased) of the complainant availed a plan under the scheme of the OPs and a membership certificate No.34272347, dated 30.10.1989  (Ann.C-1)  was issued to him for a period of 10 years.  The date of the maturity of the said certificate was 17.8.1999 and the target amount of the same was Rs.51,000/- and Rs.5100/- was to be paid annually for 10 years. It is also established on record that originally the nominee under the said membership certificate was late Mrs.Sukhinder Kaur i.e. mother of the complainant, who unfortunately expired before the death of the certificate holder i.e. her husband. The fact is not controverted by the OPs that after the death of her mother, the complainant was made the nominee by endorsing his name in the said certificate. Ann.C-2 i.e. Death Certificate of Sh.Avtar Singh Kalra (membership certificate holder), reveals that he expired on 4.6.1999 i.e. before the maturity date of the certificate, which was due for 17.8.1999.  Ann.C-3 i.e. letter dated 23.10.2012 issued by the complainant to the OPs reveals that the complainant being the nominee under the above said scheme claimed for the maturity amount from the OPs.  In response to the same, the OPs vide Annexure C-4, dated 25.3.2013 replied, the relevant part of which is as under:-

            “We observe that the copy of Membership Certificate and copy of earlier correspondence have been provided for the scheme which has matured in 1999 is more than 13 years old.  However, we have checked old records/database but there is no holding/unit outstanding as per details provided.”

 

6]       On further enquiry by the complainant, the OPs vide Ann.C-5, dated 24.6.2013, replied as under:-

            “Please refer to your letter dated nil received by us on dated 08/05/2013 regarding captioned subject along with copy of the Unit Certificate & Death Certificate in response to our earlier reply dated 25/03/2013, reference no.3/SEBI-5598/1.

It is pertinent to mention here that earlier for all maturity cases under ULIP-1971, the maturity cheques were being issued without calling for the original membership/certificate from the members.  The same would be the status for the above mentioned certificate/membership also.

            However, we have checked old records/database but there is           no holding/units outstanding as per details provided.

            In view of above, we express our inability to provide any help          in the matter.”

   

7]       Thereafter, legal notice dated 10.7.2013 (Ann.C-7) was issued to the OPs, who in reply to the said notice states as under:-

“In this regard, we wish to inform you that under Membership No.34272347, the policy has been matured in the year 1999.  Hence, we request you to kindly verify your bank records during the above said period for receipt of payment.  We also would like to inform you that since the cases are beyond our data preservation period of 8 years, we are unable to provide any further details upon the same.”

 

8]       The above quoted replies of the OPs proves that no maturity amount, due against the said membership certificate, has been paid till date by the OPs, which confirms the basis of the present complaint before us.

 

9]       The stand taken by the OPs in the defence is totally contradictory in nature in reference to the replies made earlier i.e. before filing of the present complaint. 

 

10]      For the sake of clarity, it is necessary to mention the stand taken in the written statement. The OPs submitted that they have appointed UTI Asset Management Company (AMC) Limited to manage the funds collected under the Schemes launched by UTI Mutual Fund.  The UTI AMC has taken a decision to consolidate its investors services and appointed Karvy Computershare Private Limited, as the Registrar and Transfer Agent for all the Schemes and Plans of UTI including the subject Plan. Further, stated that Karvy Computershare Private Limited has been appointed as the Registrar and Transfer Agent by UTI Mutual Fund for various schemes from the year 2008 by virtue of agreement dated 31.3.2008 (Ann.I). Further plea taken by the Opposite Parties is as regard to the limitation claiming that the present complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation as the cause of action arose on 4.6.99 and the complainant approached the OPs in the year 2012 i.e. 13 years after the cause of action without explaining the delay in filing the complaint.  Further, pleaded that as per the Regulations of Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) with reference to Chapter-VII under Clause 50(2), the period for preserving the records is 10 years from the date of the transaction and in this case, since the transaction took place in 2000 and also there is no claim or query raised by the complainant during the period of preservation, all the records were destroyed after the completion of 10 years (Ann-III). 

 

11]      It is hereby made clear that in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2,  it states that the present reply is filed by Karvy Computershare Private Limited –Opposite Party No.3 on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2, whereas Opposite Party No.3 has not been made party in the present complaint.  The reply on behalf of the OPs has no relevance in the present complaint as the so called Opposite Party No.3 has no locus standi to contest the present complaint.  Even if, for the sake of arguments, the averments made in the reply are taken into consideration, even then the OPs cannot shun from their liability to pay the maturity amount, as accrued, to the complainant, which beyond any doubt is still lying with them.

 

12]      The objection qua the limitation, as raised in the reply, mentioned above, is not sustainable as the cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant only when the demand made by him for the maturity amount was declined by the OPs. The record reveals that the complaint is being filed within limitation period accrued from the date of cause of action.  No such record is placed by the Opposite Parties to show that they ever issued maturity cheque to the complainant, as claimed in their replies mentioned earlier (Ann.C-5, dated 24.06.2013, reproduced earlier).  No notice was ever issued to the complainant before the record was alleged to be destroyed by the Opposite Parties and there is no list appended by the OPs to show the records proposed to be destroyed. The Opposite Parties being the trustee of the public money cannot usurp the same by taking unreasonable objections qua limitation etc.  The complainant is entitled for the maturity amount and by not paying so, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is proved on record.  For such view, we are supported by Smt.Manorma Vs. Chairman, Punjab National Bank, I (2004) CPJ 56 (NC); V.P.Davis Vs. Karuna Trust and Ors., II (2001) CPJ 138; Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank and Anr. Vs. M/s Paper Product Machines, R.P. No.3630 of 2012, decided on 10.10.2012 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi & F.A.No.532 of 2013, decided on 4.2.2014 by State Commission, UT, Chandigarh.

 

13]      In view of the above discussion & findings, the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To pay maturity value of Membership Certificate No.34272347 (Ann.C-1), which accrued on the date of maturity, to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. since the date of maturity i.e. 17.08.1999 till it is paid.  
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay the maturity value of Membership Certificate No.34272347 (Ann.C-1) accrued on the date of maturity to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. since the date of maturity i.e. 17.08.1999 till it is paid and also on the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.5,000/-. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

25^th June, 2015            

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

          Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

          Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                 

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.292 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 25th day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member