BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KAMRUP
C.C.No.33/2014
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora,M.Sc.,L.L.B., A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director,FCS & CA - Member
Miss Trishna Das - Complainant
-vs-
I) Unit Trust of India -Opposite parties
UTI Tower, G.N.Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051
II) Chairman, Unit Trust of India
UTI Tower, G.N.Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra ( E) Mumbai 400051
III) Executive Trustee, Unit Trust of India,
UTI Tower, G.N.Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E)Mumbai, Maharastra-400051.
IV) Branch Manager, Unit Trust of India,
Panbazar,Guwahati-1
Appearance
Mr Rajib Hazarika learned advocate for the complainant.
Mr Rajib Dev learned advocate for the opposite parties.
Date of argument: 22.01.2020
Date of judgment: 21.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint filed by the complainant Miss Trishna Das daughter of Sri Maneswar Das which has been registered on 20.5.2014 as C.C.Case No.33/2013 . The allegation made in the complaint petition is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1,2 ,3 & 4 for non payment of maturity value in respect of UNIT certificate No. 2019442200646 for 300 units under CGGF - 1986 scheme and thereby prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of Rs.12,077/- and Rs.3960/- towards interest amount under ARS bonds and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till realization and cost & any other reliefs, to the complainant with cost.
2) The fact of the case briefly narrating is that , the father of the complainant namely Maneswar Das purchased 300 units worth Rs.3,000/- of Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme from UTI in the year 1993 in the name of his daughter Trishna Das . As per the scheme the daughter of the depositor who was the age of below 1 year will get maturity amount of Rs.50,000/- after 20 years.
3) According to the complainant, the said scheme got matured on 19.12.2013 and the complainant approached o.pno. 4 (UTI authority) on 7.9.2014 for payment of maturity value as per terms of the scheme. But opposite party No. 4 inform the complainant that the said scheme has already been closed before 2012 and they have issued cheque No. 523758772 dtd.12,077/- and cheque No.523758781 dtd.8.6.2011 for Rs.3,960/- Rs.12,077/ respectively and deposited in the account of the complainant in the State Bank of India, Dadara Branch. However, no such payment has been received by the complainant till date. Several representation as well as legal notice dtd. 7.2.2014 was submitted by the complainant to the UTI for payment of the maturity value which was promised by them at the time of issuing the certificate on 8.11.1993. But, the same yielded no result. Hence, the present complaint case.
4) The complainant claim for Rs.50,000/- as compensation as the deficiency of service of the party in addition to amount of Rs,16,037/- in total 66,037/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition along with cost of the suit and other relief.
5) The contesting opp.party filed written statement through Sri Manoj Kr.Das, Branch In-charge, Unit Trust of India, Guwahati Branch . The contention of the written statement is that U.T.I. is a statutory corporation (hereinafter referred as trust) under the Unit Trust of India Act,1963. The Sec.19 and 21 of the aforesaid Act, empowered the board of trustee to make scheme and issue units to the public. Accordingly Children Gift Growth Fund (hereinafter referred as CGG F-86) was one of such scheme launched by the Trust. And it was subject to the provision of its modification carried out from time to time. It is further mentioned in written statement that said scheme was terminated with effect from 1st April 2004 the trust has appointed M/S UTI Infrastructure technology and services Ltd. as the registrar and transfer agent for the said scheme. It is therefore submitted that Guwahati Branch of office UTI is duly authorized to reply on behalf of all the opposite party. Further , it is submitted in the written statement that Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 got repealed by an Act of Parliament more particularly known as the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “ Repealing Act”) . As per the provisions of the Repealing Act, the Trust, interalia, stood Bifurcated into two entities with effect from 1st February, 2003 namely:-
i) The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as “Specified undertaking”)
ii) The UTI Trustee Company Private Limited.
6) Now, the present complaint is for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in respect of unit certificate no. 20194 42200646 for 300 units under CGGF 1986 scheme. Having such claim made by the certificate holder for entire amount of Rs.66,037/- along with interest is contested on different count by the opposite party which has been derived from the written statement as below.
I) The allegation of deficiency in service is denied and submit that allegations are false and non-existence and it is prayed that petition is liable to be dismissed.
II) The decision to terminate CGGF 86 w.e.f.1st April 2004 was bonafide and was taken consciously taking account of all relevant factors including short fall in desired terms. The CGGF 86 scheme was took terminated in accordance with the terms and condition of the scheme agreed by the complainant by signing the application form and accepting the same.
III) The CGGF 86 scheme was launched with the objective to invest in debt and equity when return of debt investment was anticipated at 14% to 16% per annum and return of equity was accepted at 15% to 20% per annum . But the market condition was drastically changed prior to termination of the scheme and opposite party tries to justified the termination of the scheme taking account of the fact that commercial lending rate were dropped to 8% to 11% in the year 2002 to 2003. The ground for terminating the scheme as mentioned in the written statement are matter of official record of opposite party and opposite party have tried to justified the termination of the scheme which was purchased by the complainant.
IV) It is further mentioned in the statement that on 1st January /2004 the NAV of the scheme was 9.6 per unit and to meet the committed rate of 12% the said scheme had to earn in excess of 14% consistently over the next 15 year which in the uncertain economic scenerio was not visible at all, which is a ground for termination of the scheme. The opposite part further made reference about reduction of interest rate by 3.00% to 4.00% in the public provident fund National Savings certificate, Indira Vikash Patra, Employees provident fund, post office deposit and Kisan Bikash Patra. And also made reference of some long term bonds which were redeemed by prematured termination.
V) It is categorically mentioned in the written statement that CGGF Unit Scheme 1986 had a “Clause 33” which read as under.
“The Trust reserves the right to terminate the said scheme at any time by giving a notice of not less than two weeks in one of the leading English dailies, without assigning any reason whatsoever if it feels in the interest of the unit-holders and the Trust it is expedient so to do” The scheme had been duly published in the Gazette of India dated 19th April ,1986.”
7) Having such ground on written statement and on the basis of the pleading of the parties following issues are taken for discussion and decision,
Point for decision
i) Whether claim petition is filed within the period of limitation ?
ii) Whether the termination of the scheme on 1.4.2004 was done with due notice to the complainant as required by law ?
iii) Whether the claim made for maturity proceed of Rs.50,000/- is illegal after foreclosure of CGGF scheme on 31.3.2004 ?
iv) Whether the maturity amount to the extent of Rs.16,037/- were paid by the opposite party on 7.7.2011 ?
v) Whether complainant is entitled for the claim made by her in respect of Unit Certificate No. 2019442200646 for 300 Units under CGGF/86 issued by UTI and any other reliefs ?
Reasons for decision
8) We have carefully gone through the entire record as well as the evidence adduced by the parties. We have perused the documents that is copy of non-transferrable receipt issued by opposite parties No. 2 & 3, copies of Annual growth Chart issued on 31.07.98 and representation filed by the complainant, copy of legal notice, photo copy of the movement of sensex, copy of the volatility in equity market returns and also gone through the certain documents submitted in the form of photo copies pertaining to the dispute in respect of CGGF. At the same time we have gone through the relevant case laws provided by the opposite party in support of their written statement considered are in the principle of law established by the various authority and respectfully accepted those principles.
Issue No.I –
9) Let us now take up the issue No. 1 . First we have taken the disputed fact whether the case is filed within the period of limitation. It is apparent from the pleading of the parties that dispute arose at the point of time when the claim was get matured on 19.12.2013 and thereafter it contains till 7.1.2014 when complainant approached the opposite party for payment of maturity value as per terms and conditions of the scheme.
10) Admittedly, there were some transaction between the parties and the legal notices was issued on 7.2.2014, though the certificate was issued on 8.11.1993 , but the cause of action arose when the payment was not made on the day of maturity that is 19.12.13 and thereafter, the present complaint petition was filed on 1.4.2014 , as such the whole proceeding is filed within the period of two years and hence issued no. 1 is decided in affirmative.
Issue no. 2-
11) This is the important issue for determination of the dispute. Now the evidence of the complainant which is recorded as C.W.1 Miss Trishna Das was the beneficiary of the scheme and according to her, this aforesaid scheme was purchased by her father Maneswar Das in the year 1993 at the amount of Rs.3,000/- and as per the scheme the maturity amount will be Rs.50,000/- after 20 years. She testified Ex.1 the certificate issued by the Chairman and the executive Trustee of UTI. The above certificate is available with record, which is indicating all facts with a certificate under the scheme mentioned in the complaint was in the name of Trishna Das issued by the opposite party. The photo copy of the documents as Annual Growth Chart.
12) Now, the salient point raised by the opposite party is that aforesaid scheme has been closed before 2012. During cross-examination the opposite party, that is evidence of D.W.1, it appears that the opposite party by virtue of the power conferred by the administrator have decided to close the scheme (CGGF/86) along with 6 other scheme and accordingly the scheme in question was foreclosed w.e.f. 31.3.2004. The opposite party claimed that they had addressed the brochure option letter dtd. 15.12.2003 by post to all the eligible unit holders at their last available recorded address intimating them for foreclosure the scheme giving them option for payment and redemption proceeds or for conversion proceeds into tax free ARS Bonds guaranteed by Government of India. It is claimed that option were notified in the National Dailies, the Indian Express publication dated 24.12.2003. This claim made by the opposite party has not been established by exhibiting any newspaper with above notification or advertisement.
13) The documents testified by D.W.1 Sri Manoj Kr.Das is a photocopy of paper cutting which does not specifically mentioned about the name of the newspaper and its date. Here pen writing as we observed mentioned as Indian Express , Mumbai 24.12.2003 is not suggestive of the fact that any notification pertaining to the defect of foreclosure of the scheme was published in the newspaper as claimed.
14) It is a disputed fact as mentioned in the written statement by the opposite party. It is an admitted fact that as per the scheme Trust reserve the right to terminate the scheme at any time by giving notice not less than two weeks time, in any leading English Daily. As per documents available on record vide Annex.C is a Gazzate notification; but as we have discussed, there is no specific documents produced by the opposite parties to prove the fact that due notice was given by publishing in any leading English Daily about the termination of the scheme by the opposite party.
15) We have carefully gone through provision 33 of the scheme about termination of the scheme which is giving a clear indication that before termination of the scheme a notice of not less than two weeks in one of the leading English Daily with assigning with a reason is to be given if it is feel necessary in the interest of the Unit holder. It is basic principle of the scheme is published in the Gazette of India, April , 1986 which is available with record. Documents available on record as Annexure (i) series does not make it conclusively proved with the advertisement was made about the foreclosure of the scheme in daily newspaper as because the documents does not contain the date and publication of the foreclosure scheme as claimed by the opposite party. After due consideration of the evidence on record as well as documents produced by the parties it can be held safely that no notice was issued by the opposite party before foreclosure of the scheme which required to be taken as per provision 33 of the aforesaid scheme notified in the Gazette of India. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the complainant .
Issue No. 3:-
16) The claim made for maturity value proceed of Rs.50,000/- by the complainant at the time of date of maturity as per original scheme is justified ? Or whether said scheme made after foreclosure of CGGF on 31.3.2004 is illegal or to be determined on the basis of available evidence and let pertaining to the scheme published by Unit Trust of India.
17) The claimant had purchased the certificate vide Ex.1 photo copy which value had recorded and had indicates that it was duly purchased in the name of the complainant, The Unit Trust of India authority have the power to terminate the claim as already discussed, but it must be done with due notice to the certificate purchaser by publishing it in daily newspaper which had not been done by the opposite party as already discussed in the earlier issue. Secondly, there is no evidence from the opposite party that they issued and served notice upon the present Unit holder about the termination of the scheme in the year 2004 and there is no evidence about service of notice on 15.12.2003 informing the complainant about ARS Bond. As such, the foreclosure of the scheme from the 1st April,2004 is itself not at power provision of the CGGF Scheme ,1986 and hence claim made by the complainant is not illegal and this issue is decided in affirmative.
Issue No.4.
18) Whether the maturity amount in the extend of Rs.16,037/- was paid to the opposite party on 7.7.2011 is a fact that needs to be determined on the basis of available evidence on record. The opposite party have claimed that they have issued two no.s of cheques to the complainant, but contrary to that , it has been clearly admitted by the O.P.W. 1 . It is claimed that 2 no.s of cheques were issued through post , but there is no specific evidence by adducing any evidence about issue of the cheques through registered post or other ways. It has been further admitted that initially cheques were returned to the opposite party for lapse of withdrawal time and subsequently UTI have issued fresh cheques and it is categorically admitted by the O.P.W.1 that subsequent two no.s of cheque were issued in the name of one Smti Trishna Das, daughter of Dinesh Ch.Das . This name is not directly related to the complainant. The complainant’s fathers name is Maneswar Das who had originally purchased the CGGF scheme /86 in favour of the complainant and not Dinesh Das.
19) There is no specific evidence from the opposite party that no specific no. of cheque was received and encashed by the complainant in her account and hence that specific evidence and contrary view about issue of notice to one Trishna Das, d/o Dinesh Das for recovery of cheque amount etc. is contrary to the fact that any cheque were issued in the name of present complainant for the value under ARS scheme by the opposite party. The evidence of the complainant further make it clear that she do not have any account in the State Bank of India , Dadara Branch referring to the cheque in question issued by the opposite party. There is no evidence to prove that any amount was paid to the complainant by above two no.s of cheque and hence present issue is decided in negative. There is a prayer for compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service of the opposite party in the claim petition in para 15. We have carefully considered the entire circumstances of the dispute between the parties and it is considered that there is a little deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby some amount of compensation need to awarded in favour of the complainant.
Issue no. 5 :
20) Whether complainant is entitled for the claim made by her in respect of Unit certificate No. 2019442200646 for 300 units under CGGF Scheme/ 86 issued by UTI and any other relief ? From the discussion made in earlier issues it became apparent that Unit certificate under CGGF scheme was duly purchased by the father of the complainant and it is not denied by the opposite party. But however, it appears from the discussion made here in above that aforesaid certificate was converted into Annual Return Scheme Bond (ARS Bond) and that was done without proper notice as required under clause 33 under the provision of CGGF Scheme/86 (as notified in the Gazette of India dtd.19.4.1986). As such conversion of the scheme without notice to the beneficiary regarding foreclosure of the scheme is found not justified and hence the claimant is entitled for the amount of maturity as assured amounting to Rs.50,000/- .
21) So far issue of cheque in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.16,037/- is concerned it is categorically denied by the complainant and opposite party have failed to established the fact that any cheque was drawn in favour of the claimant or payment has been made in respect of the parties . In this way, it is found that claimant was entitled for the assured amount as per the scheme. There was a clear negligence and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party as they have admittedly issued the cheque of bond amount to another person, not to the complainant and it is the duty of the opposite party to recover the same bond amount and to make the actual agreed payment as per the original CGGF scheme/86. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.
ORDER
I) The complainant is entitled to get the entire maturity value of CGGF scheme/86 amounting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) .
II) The complainant is further entitled for an amount of compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/-for mental agony and harassment.
III) The opposite parties are further directed to pay cost of the suit amounting to Rs.5,000/-.
In default of payment of the decreetal amount by the opposite party within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment, the opposite party will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the whole amount from the date of judgment till realization .
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup , this the 21st day of February/2020
Member Member President
