DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of November 2012
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
: Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 3/4/2012
CC No.59/2012
1.Sushamadevi,
V.228-A,
Chandranagar Colony,
(House No.207, Ward No./XII,
Marutharode Panchayath,
Palakkad – 678 007
2.Lavanya,
D/o.Balakrishnan,
House No.207, Ward No.XII
Marutharode Panchayath,
Palakkad – 678 007
(By Adv.K.P.Ramadasan) - Complainants
Vs
1.Unit Trust of India,
Regional Office,
28/876/77 West Pallithamam Building,
Karunakaran Nambiar Road,
Round North,
Thrissur – 680 020
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
2.UTI Infrastructure Technology & Services Ltd.
Plot No.3, Sector 11. CBO Belapor,
Navi Mumbai – 400 614. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief :
Complainant purchased 500 units of Rajlakshmi Units in her daughter’s name in the year 1992 from the 1st opposite party. The units attained maturity on October 2012. According to the certificate issued by the 1st opposite party the amount to be paid on the date of maturity is Rs.90,000/-. As instructed by the opposite party, complainant’s daughter returned the original Rajlakshmi Certificate for obtaining the payment. After that on 20/02/12 complainant received a cheque for Rs.14,414.76 signed by the Administrator of the opposite party. Instead of paying the promised amount of Rs.90,000/-, the opposite parties paid only Rs.14,414.76 which is a unilateral rescinding of contract and not rendering the service as promised. The unilateral rescinding of contract by the opposite party is contrary to all norms and the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/-. The payment partly made by the opposite parties caused mental distress since the amount is far below the expectation of complainant which he was planned to expend for the educational purpose of her daughter. Due to the act of opposite parties complainant was forced to take alternate arrangements to raise money for her daughter’s education. Hence complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- with interest @12% from September 2011 till realization and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme is introduced under section 21 of the UTI Act 1963 and it is exclusively for the benefit of girl child. The scheme provided for investment in the name of a female child upto the age of 5 years and maturing after a lock-in period of 16 to 20 years. The scheme did not promise any particular percentage of return and the investment was subject to market risk. The scheme was terminated w.e.f. 30th September 2000 and the termination was in exercise of statutory powers under section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act 1963. As per Ext.B2 the scheme provides premature closure under clause XXVII. The said scheme was terminated on 1/10/2000 and opposite parties sent letters all unit holders seeking their option either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to any other scheme. The termination proceeds of the holdings to all the investors were paid on the basis of earning as assured upto 30th September 2000 on receipt of the option form. The allegation of complainant in not intimating the termination proceeds was incorrect. It was published in UTI bulletins and leading newspapers. Opposite party also states that it is the duty of the complainant to keep track of the investment and performance of the Scheme in which she made the investment. Communication, publication etc. were made available by the opposite party from time to time. It is submitted that the complainant submitted the redemption form on 13/12/2011 and the complainant has been paid Rs.14,414.76 in accordance with the provisions of the plan and as per her entitlement at par with all other investors of the Scheme and no other amount of any nature is due to be paid to the complainant and it is the full and final payment as per the Scheme provisions and decision of the Board of Trustees while terminating the scheme. Hence, opposite parties prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 to B4.
Issues for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.1 & 2
500 Rajlakshmi unit subscribed in the name of the complainant’s daughter is admitted. Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme got terminated on 30/9/2000 is also an admitted fact. Receipt of cheque for Rs.14,414.76 dated 20/2/12 is also admitted. The only issue to be decided herein is whether the act of opposite party in cancelling the scheme unilaterally amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part and whether complainant is entitled for Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest.
In Ext.B2 clause XXVII specifically provides provision for termination of the scheme which read as follows:
“The scheme may if circumstances so prevail not being in the interest of the unit holders or the Trust be terminated with sufficient notice to the Government. All unit holders who have participated in the Scheme shall be paid the value of the units standing to their credit at the final repurchase price fixed for the purpose. Besides receiving the final purchase 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. The unit certificate received for repurchase shall be retained for cancellation.”
Complainant has submitted that the unilateral rescinding of the contract is illegal. As per the above stated clause we find that the termination of the scheme is as per law.
Complainant has argued that they are not informed about the cancellation of the scheme. Opposite party has contented that wide publicity was given through UTI bulletins and newspapers. Also individual letters were sent to unit holders. Copies of the UTI bulletin marked as Ext.B4 series. With regard to the said aspect Hon’ble National Commission has held in Vijayasakthi Vs. UTI & Another Revision petition No.2828 of 2007 that “While it is possible that the letter may not have reached all unit holders including petitioner, we find that the termination of the scheme was widely published not only through UTI bulletins, but also through advertisement in leading national newspapers eg.. The Times of India”. These notices as observed by the State Commission amounted to constructive notice to all unit holders. Petitioner therefore cannot take the plea that the scheme was terminated without due notice.
We find that the decision rendered by the Apex court in the above case squarely applies to the one in hand. In the light of the above decision we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November 2012.
Sd/-
Seena.H,
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Unit Certificate of RUS (original)
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of letter dated 21/9/11 sent by opposite party to the
complainant
Ext.A3 – Cheque for Rs.14414.76 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of application form - RUS
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Gazette of India dated 17/4/1993.
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of letter dtd.20/8/2000 regarding termination of RUS.
Ext.B4 series – Photocopy of UTI bulletin (4 nos)
