Vardan Singh Rana s/o Sh.Ram Murti Singh Rana, aged about 19 years, R/o H.No.2160/3, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh

                                                                                    Appellant

V E R S U S

Unit Trust of India, Jeevan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

Respondent

BEFORE:      JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Ajit Singh, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. B.J. Singh, Adv. for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 24.8.2011,  passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 472 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the father of the complainant

purchased units, each having face value of Rs.10/-, under a scheme, with certificate Numbers i.e. 1480(4069442201914), 1970(4069442201913), 2000(406950030004415), 3000(406950030003399) and 990(4069442201915 respectively in his (complainant’s) name. It was stated that the said scheme floated by the OP was known as “Children’s Gift Growth Fund Unit Scheme 1986” under which all children were entitled to the maturity amount, on attaining the age of majority i.e. either 18 years or 21 years, as the case may be.  It was further stated that the complainant having born on 06th July, 1992 attained the age of majority on 06th July, 2010, as per the School Certificate. He accordingly approached the OP on 06.07.2010, to lodge claim, with respect to the maturity value of the said bonds.  It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to know that the amount due to him, had already been paid/encashed on 28.04.2009 and 29.4.2009. The OP refused to give any further details. It was further stated that the maturity value of the amount was never paid to the complainant. It was further stated that this act of the OP amounted to deficiency in service.  The complainant was entitled to receive the maturity value of the units in the sum of Rs.3,49,878/- (Rs.2,81,498/- and Rs.68385/- respectively withdrawn on 28.4.2009 and 29.4.2009 respectively) being the legal and rightful claimant. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called as the Act only)  was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, it admitted the fact that the Bonds in question, were subscribed in the name of Vardan Singh Rana complainant, R/o H.No.496, Ward No.7, Jawahar Nagar, Ambala City, under CGGF-86 Scheme.  It was stated that consequent upon the termination of CGGF Scheme w.e.f. 31.3.2004, the proceeds of the Unit Certificates, held by the complainant, were converted into ARS Bond Certificates, and were sent at the address mentioned in the Bonds. It was further stated that the converted Bond Certificates, as well as the cheque of maturity value alongwith interest in favour of the complainant, were sent at the address mentioned in the same (Bonds), which were received by one Indira Rani. It was further stated that this indicated that the complainant and Indra Rani, being the residents of the same premises, were related to each other.  It was further stated that the OP addressed the Brochure Option Letter on 15.12.2003, sent by post, to all eligible unit holders at their last available recorded address, before the date of foreclosure, intimating them about the foreclosure of scheme, and giving them the option either for payment of redemption proceeds, or for conversion of redemption proceeds to 6.60% Tax Free ARS Bonds guaranteed by the Govt. of India.  It was further stated that the printing of corresponding bond certificates was kept in abeyance on account of non-availability of details of guardian (father/mother/lawful guardian) in the Records and objection/intimation letters together with guardian updation forms, were sent to all such holders including the complainant, at his recorded Ambala Address. It was further stated that one Smt.Indra Rani submitted Guardian Updation Form together with her letter dated 05.10.2005 giving bank details of account No.8543, Bank of India, Railway Road, Ambala City, and her attested signatures by the said Banker.  Being identified as the bonafide guardian of the complainant, the OP issued the cheques, in the name of the complainant.  It was further stated that the OP had acted as per their Rules and were not deficient in rendering service. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

6.         Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.       It is an admitted fact that the father of the complainant purchased UTI bonds in the name of the complainant, who was minor, at that time, under the Scheme of Children Gift Growth Fund, 1986 (CGGF-86). The complainant was entitled to withdraw the said amount, only on attaining the age of majority. According to the OP, the aforesaid scheme was foreclosed on 31.3.2004, but before foreclosure, brochure option letter dated 15.12.2003, was sent by post to all the eligible unit holders, including the complainant, at their last known recorded address, intimating them, that they could give option either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to 6.60.% tax free ARS Bonds guaranteed by Govt. of India. If no option was received from the unit holders by 16.2.2004, the unit holders were to be issued the ARS bonds in lieu of the investment under the said scheme. No copy of such individual option intimation, allegedly sent, at the last recorded address of the complainant, was produced by the OP. The Counsel for the OP, at the time of arguments frankly admitted that since the individual option notices, were sent to a large number of unit holders, it was not possible to maintain the record thereof, and, as such, copy of the individual letter/notice sent to the complainant could not be produced. In the absence of production of proof regarding the sending of individual option notice, to the complainant, it could be safely held that he (complainant) was not sent the same. Mere notice for giving the option, in English Dailies including the Indian Express dated 24.12.2003, did not amount to due notice of option to the complainant. The UTI bonds were non-transferable.  Annexure C-2 to C-6 are the bonds produced by the complainant. Even the OP did not verify, as to whether, Indira Rani was the guardian of the complainant, especially, when in one of Certificates bearing No. 406950030004415, the name of the co-applicant is written as Parveen Kumari, who according to the complainant, is his real mother. Even Annexure C11 to C17, various progress reports, for different academic sessions, of the complainant issued by Shivalik Public School, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, where he was studying, the name of his mother is also written as Smt. Parveen Kumari. If the OP sent the cheques of maturity proceeds with interest and converted bonds to Indira Rani, without proper verification of her relationship, with the complainant or that she was his legal guardian, and she got the same (cheques) encashed, he (complainant ) could not be blamed. If the OP connived with Indira Rani, or the bank, and paid the amount, aforesaid, to her, or she played fraud with it (OP) and the bank and succeeded in getting the amount, referred to above, the complainant could not be held responsible. This clearly proves that the OP was grossly deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. The complainant was, thus, entitled to the maturity proceeds of the converted bonds, with interest, but the District Forum was wrong in holding otherwise. The findings of the District Forum, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, and the complainant was not entitled to the amount of maturity proceeds, with interest, being illegal are reversed.

9.         For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, with costs, and set aside the impugned order, passed by the District Forum. We direct the OP to pay as follows;

                                    (i)        withdrawal amount of Rs.3,49,878/- alongwith     

                                            interest accrued thereon as per the terms and   

                                                condition of the Scheme to the complainant. 

                                    (ii)       Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation          

                                           for mental agony and physical harassment.

(iii)         Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

                  10.       The OP is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which it shall be liable to pay penal interest @12%, on the entire awarded amount w.e.f. 8.7.2010 i.e. the date of claim, made by the complainant, after attaining majority, till its realization, besides litigation costs.

                  11.       However, the OP shall be at liberty to recover the amount, from Smt. Indira Rani, which it had wrongly released in her favour, under the provisions of law.

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

Pronounced.                                                                         

December 20, 2011

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

 PRESIDENT

 [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                          MEMBER