STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.146 of 2011)

Nitika Sharma daughter of Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma, Flat No.231 Ground floor, United Co-operative House Building Society (Opp. Army Institute of Law), Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                … Appellant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       Unit Trust of India through its Managing Director C/o UTI Technology Services Limited (A Government of India Company), Plot No.3 Sector No.11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614.

2]       The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India, UTI Tower, GN Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai (erstwhile Branch Manager, Unit Trust ofIndia, Gulab Bhawan (Rear Block), 2^nd Floor, 6, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002).

3]       UTI Infrastructure Technology & Services Limited, Northern Regional Office, 174-175 DDA Building, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajender Place, New Delhi through its Assistant Vice President (formerly Branch Manager, Unit Trust of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh).

4]       UTI Technology Services Limited, SCO No. 70, First Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Executive. 

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Naginder Singh Vashist, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

1.                      This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.5.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that when the complainant was 3 years old, her father had purchased 500 units of Raj Lakshmi Unit Scheme, floated by the Unit Trust of India @ Rs.10/- each, under which she was entitled to get a sum of Rs.65,000/- on the maturity of the units after attaining the age of 21 years i.e. on 21.5.2010. Accordingly, she applied to the OPs for the release of the said amount on 7.6.2010 alongwith requisite documents. It was alleged that instead of honouring their commitment, the OPs raised certain frivolous objections vide their letter dated 26.6.2010 which were complied with by the complainant vide letter dated 3.10.2010 (sic. 3.7.2010) whereafter the OPs sent a cheque dated 10.8.2010 for a sum of Rs.15217.74 only, instead of Rs.65,000/-, without assigning any reason. The complainant filed a consumer complaint but the same was withdrawn.  Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.9.2010 to the OPs for the release of the balance amount.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      The OPs in their written reply pleaded that the complainant herself was negligent as she failed to apply for redemption proceeds in time, as was done by other investors under the scheme in question, which was to be released on surrender of duly discharged unit certificate. It was further pleaded that the claim of maturity amount of Rs.65,000/- at future date i.e. 21.5.2010, when the scheme itself got terminated on 30.9.2000, was imaginary and against the well established legal norms. It was pleaded that all the unit holders were informed about the termination of the scheme by UTI Bulletins and press release in Indian Express on 14.9.2000 and also in Amar Ujala on 16.9.2000. It was stated that as soon as the complainant surrendered her certificate on 30.7.2010 the redemption proceeds were paid to her on 10.8.2010, in accordance with provisions of the plan and as per entitlement of the complainant, and no amount towards redemption was due to be paid to the complainant.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, and pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

6.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant, gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully, and are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the admission stage itself, for the reasons recorded hereinafter. 

7.                      The ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has referred to the judgments in the cases V. Lakshmanan Vs. B.R. Mangalagiri-1995(2) JT 105, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Devi Mishra-1998 (4) RCR (Civil) 205, Dalbir Singh Vs. Kuljit Singh-1993 (2) RRR 319 and Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Paramjit Singh Major & Anr.-1983 PLR 677 and argued that it was an agreement with the minor which could not be cancelled to her detriment and, therefore, the decision of the respondents/OPs to terminate the scheme cannot sustain.  This argument cannot help the complainant either on facts or on law.  In fact, the agreement was with Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, father of the complainant, who had purchased the bonds and invested the amount in the name of the complainant, because the complainant was only three years old and had no money, of her own, to invest in the bonds.  The contract with Shri Satish Kumar Sharma was perfectly legal and valid.  He very well knew that the scheme could be terminated at any time.  It, therefore, cannot be said if it was an agreement with the minor or the termination of the scheme is bad in law.  The contention of the OPs/respondents is that the Scheme was terminated for the benefit of the bond holders who could get better returns in the market in view of the fact that the market was rising. The decision to terminate the Scheme was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP No.2001 of 2000 decided on 20.10.2000.  A similar matter came before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No.14548 of 2000 which was decided on 13.3.2001 upholding the termination order of the Scheme. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4457 of 2000 also upheld the termination as legal and correct vide its order dated 4.9.2001.  It may be mentioned that in all those cases, the units had been purchased in the name of the minors and the termination of the Scheme was held to be for the benefit of the minors. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the scheme could not be terminated premature was, therefore, rightly rejected by the ld. District Forum.

8.                      The ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that no notice of termination was given to the appellant; that the amount remained with the respondent even after the termination and, therefore, at least some interest should be given to the appellant on the amount which definitely remained with the respondents who could utilize it for earning interest.  So far as the issuance of notice is concerned, the OPs have produced the various notices (Annexure E & F), issued by them in the newspapers, for the termination of the Scheme.  Apart from issuance in the newspapers, no other mode of notice was prescribed in the Scheme and, therefore, we cannot agree with the contention of the appellant that the proper notice of termination was not given by the OPs.

9.                      The question that some interest should be allowed was considered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.14548 of 2000 (supra).  The Hon’ble High Court did not accept the said submission.  Otherwise also, clause XXVII of the Scheme provides that besides receiving 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. In view of this provision in the Scheme, the complainant is not entitled to any further benefit under the Scheme. 

10.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.  There is no merit in this appeal and the same cannot be admitted for regular hearing.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

14^th July, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg