DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI – 110 006

CC No. 165/2012

 CC No. 166/2012

Ms. Isha Singh

D/o Late Sh. Vipin Kumar

R/o F-184, Prashant Vihar,

Delhi – 110 085.

Authorised Representative

Grand Father

Sh. Rattan Lal Singh

s/o Sh. Ram Chander

R/o F-184, Prashant Vihar,

DELHI – 110 085.                                                   ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Unit Trust of India

I P Estate, ITO

NEW DELHI – 110 002

2. UTI Investor Services Ltd.

Plot No. 3, Sector 11, CBD Belapur

Navi

MUMBAI – 400 614

UTI Investor Services Ltd.

I P Estate,

NEW DELHI – 110 002                              ..........Respondent/OP

ORDER

Per Sh. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

Both the aforesaid complaints arise out of similar facts and are therefore being disposed off by this common order.

The complaints have been filed the allegations that the grandfather of the complainant Sh. Rattan Lal Singh had applied for allotment of 800 units under the Children Gift Grown Funds 1986 scheme of respondent No. 1.  Accordingly 800 units with face value of Rs.10/- each were allotted in favour of the complainant which were to mature on 24.12.2014 and were to carry an interest rate @ 14% p.a.  This was the case in complaint no. 165/2012.

This scheme was however pre-maturely closed by the OP w.e.f. 31.3.2004 and the investors were given a choice to get back the amount invested in the scheme or to get the amount converted into 6.60% tax free bonds floated by Govt. of India.

As per complaint no. 166/2012, the grandfather of the complainant Sh. Rattan Lal Singh had purchased 800 Units from the OP under Raj Lakshmi Unit Plan (II) dated 25.10.1985.

This scheme are also was also pre-maturely closed by the Op and converted into ARS Bonds.

It is the case of the complainant that the grandfather had protested against the closer of the schemes and its conversion into bonds.

He had served notices dated 25.2.2006 calling upon the OP for the refund of the deposit alongwith interest @ 14% p.a.  Since the OP had failed to oblige, the complainant had filed the aforesaid two complaints in this Forum for redressal of her grievances.

Both the complaints have been contested by the OP.  The OP has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaints are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed.

In its affidavit-cum-reply in complaint no. 165/12.  The OP has taken the following preliminary objection:-

Para 6.  At the outset it is humbly submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on the following Preliminary Objections among other grounds:-

1. That the opposite party in particular deny it’s liability herein in toto and submit that the complainant has made out a malafide, false, frivolous, vexatious and bad-in-law case against them dishonestly and therefore the proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Act is null and void and without any jurisdiction.  The complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and purposely suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant has failed to inform her change in address to opposite party. Further, she had neither surrendered the original unit certificate together with option form for getting the terminal proceeds of CGGF nor furnished guardian updation form during her minority and also on attaining majority, failed to furnish her signature attested by bank manager requisite for proceeds of converted Government of India (GOI)  Bonds.  The complainant has resorted to file this vexatious complaint before the Hon’ble Forum with misleading statements and non-existent claims instead of complying with the prescribed procedural requirements.  The complainant may be put to strict proof of complying with prescribed procedural requirements.  It is therefore clear that complainant has made an attempt to misuse the legal process.  The complainant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by concealing the correct facts and submitting false/incorrect information and such action on the part of the complainant is simply unlawful, uncalled for and ought to be strictly views by the Hon’ble Forum. 
2. That the complaint is also not maintainable, as the complainant has sought claims, which are beyond the scheme provisions of CGGF’86.  The claim of the complainant towards imaginary maturity proceeds at future date on 25.4.2012 subsequent to termination of scheme on 31.3.2004 is not only false but also lacks logic and illegal.  The complainant has nowhere in the complaint produced the proof that the opposite party has promised her to pay maturity amount of Rs.74211/- on 25.4.2012, as claimed  and prayed for by her in the present complaint. The entire complaint is based on her own surmises and assumptions without any base or proof.  The complainant may claim the entitled terminal proceeds of CGGF scheme amounting Rs.24782.23 as assured upto date of its foreclosure on 31.3.2004 together with 6.60 tax free interest with effect from 1.4.2004 till the date of maturity 1.4.2009 of converted GOI Bonds on furnishing her unit certificate together with Redemption cum signature Verification form, bank particulars, Self attested copy of identification and address proof.
3. That the matter is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. In the present case, the investment was made in the name of Isha Singh R/o H.No. 384. D M Road, Officers Colony, Bulandshahr, the unit certificate was accordingly send and received by complainant at here referred Bulandshahr address.  Further, guardian updation form, reply letter dated 29.9.2007 and formalities of minor attaining majority, maturity intimation letter were sent and received at her Bulandshahr address.  Therefore, the Ld. District Forum at Delhi has not territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint when no cause of action arose in Delhi.  Hence, the complainant is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
4. That the complaint is also barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

  In Para 7  of its reply the OP has stated as under:-

  7.Without prejudice to above contentions, the opposite party submits as follows:

(I) The investment under CGGF was a gift to a child below 15 years of age, which matures on completion of 21 years of age of the unit holder.  The date of maturity is based on  the date of birth of the child in whose name the investment is made and the certificate is issued.  The unit certificate no. 4079960030002118 for 800 parent units was subscribed in the name of complainant from her Bulandshahr address, as stated supra in item no. 6 (C ). The date of birth of complainant was 24.12.1993 and therefore the date of maturing in this investment is 24.12.2014.  The complainant has failed to inform her change in address  to opposite party till date.

 (II) The said scheme was foreclosed w.,e.f. 31.3.2004, as per the decisions taken by the Administrator of the Specified undertaking of Unit Trust of India. Before the date of said termination, option was given to all unit holders under CGGF either to opt for payment of the terminal proceeds or for conversion of the terminal  proceeds into 6.60% Tradable tax free bonds guaranteed by Government of India.  Accordingly, option forms were sent to all the investor on 15.12.2003 at their last available address by ordinary post including the complainant.  A copy of option form sent to the unit holders is enclosed as Annexure ‘A”.  Further, as per the terms of the Offer, if no option form is received from the investors up to 16.2.2004, he or she will be issued the ARS Bonds in lieu of the investments under the said scheme.  The option was advertised in the Nation Dailies including The Indian Express publication dated 24.12.2003 marked and enclosed as Annexure ‘B’.  As per well established law, Press release in the National Newspaper amounted to Constructive notice to all unit holder.

(III) It is submitted that  since no option  form was received from complainant, the terminal proceeds of outstanding units at the time of foreclosure against said CGGF certificate amounting Rs.24782.23 was divided by the face value of a bond  i.e. Rs.100/- and converted in default option into following Government of India Tradable tax free bond certificate in favour of Isha Singh, in terms of the said offer.

    However, the printing of the corresponding bond certificate was under abeyance on account of non-availability of the details of the guardian (father/mother/lawful guardian) in the records and intimation/objection letters were sent to all such holders including complainant for furnishing the requisite details.

(IV). It is submitted that opposite party has neither received any option form for redemption, as averred in para no. 7 of complaint nor any legal notice, as stated in para no. 11 of complaint and she may be put to strict proof thereof.  The complainant has neither mentioned any dispatch details nor produced any proof of its receipt at the office of opposite party.  The Opposite party maintain that such averments are just an afterthought in order to cover up her lapse.  The averment of complainant that she did not accept the bond certificate sent to her, is totally false and denied since the question of sending the bond certificate does not arise when the same is under abeyance on account of non-availability of the details of the guardian. Hence, the opposite party humbly brushes aside the averments of complainant.  The correspondence of complainant was suitably replied vide letter dated 29.9.2007 (Copy enclosed as Annexure ‘C’) advising the procedural requirements for ARS Bond certificate together with its interest cheques.  It may also be appreciated that signature of the complainant during her minority cannot be obtained, however on her attaining majority on 24.12.2011, she was also advised to send her signature attested by her guardian or bank manager together with her bank account details vide intimation letter sent at her last available correct address.  However, complainant instead of complying with the simple prescribed procedural requirements has resorted to file this vexatious complaint with misleading statements.

          The OP has stated that a sum of Rs.24,700/- together with interest @ 6.60% w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 is payable to the complainant on completion of due formalities.  It has also stated that since the ARS Bond Certificate has matured/ceased to exist w.e.f. 1.4.2009 no interest is payable beyond the said party.

       In complaint no. 166/2012 the OP in its affidavit-cum-reply has taken the following preliminary objection:-

Para 6. At the outset it is humbly submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on the following Preliminary Objections among other grounds:-

1. That the opposite party in particular deny it’s liability herein in toto and submit that the complainant has made out a malafide, false, frivolous, vexatious and bad-in-law case against them dishonestly and therefore the proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Act is null and void and without any jurisdiction.  The complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and purposely suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant has failed to inform her change in address to opposite party. Further, she had neither surrendered the original membership advice together with option form for getting the terminal proceeds of RUP-II nor furnished guardian updation form during her minority and also on attaining majority, failed to furnish her signature attested by bank manager requisite for proceeds of converted Government of India (GOI)  Bonds.  The complainant has resorted to file this vexatious complaint before the Hon’ble Forum with misleading statements and non-existent claims instead of complying with the prescribed procedural requirements.  The complainant may be put to strict proof of complying with prescribed procedural requirements.  It is therefore clear that complainant has made an attempt to misuse the legal process.  The complainant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by concealing the correct facts and submitting false/incorrect information and such action on the part of the complainant is simply unlawful, uncalled for and ought to be strictly views by the Hon’ble Forum. 
2. That the complaint is also not maintainable, as the complainant has sought claims, which are beyond the scheme provisions of RUP-II.  The claim for refund of principal invested amounts with interest is unfounded and non-maintainable.  The investors are entitled to invest and receive benefits as per the scheme provisions.  The scheme provisions are duly notified in the Gazette of India and are binding on all the investors as well as on the Trust.  The entire complaint is based on her own surmises and assumptions without any base or proof.  The complainant may claim the entitled terminal proceeds of RUP-II scheme amounting Rs.24128.78 as assured upto date of its foreclosure on 31.3.2004 together with 6.60 tax free interest with effect from 1.4.2004 till the date of maturity 1.4.2009 of converted Government of India Bonds on furnishing her unit certificate together with Redemption cum Signature Verification form , bank particulars, Self attested copy of identification and address proof. 

3. That the matter is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. In the present case, the investment was made in the name of Isha Singh R/o H.No. 384. D M Road, Officers Colony, Bulandshahr, the unit certificate was accordingly send and received by complainant at here referred Bulandshahr address.  Further, guardian updation form, reply letter dated 29.9.2007 and formalities of minor attaining majority, maturity intimation letter were sent and received at her Bulandshahr address.  Therefore, the Ld. District Forum at Delhi has not territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain he complaint when no cause of action arose in Delhi.  Hence, the complainant is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
4. That the complaint is also barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

     In Para 7  of its reply the OP has stated as under:-

  7.Without prejudice to above contentions, the opposite party submits as follows:

(I) The Membership Advice No. 400960070003773 for 800 parent units under RUP-II was subscribed in the name of Isha Singh, as per the provisions of the plan, which matures on completion of 21 years of age of the unit holder.  The date of maturity is based on the date of of birth of the child in whose name the investment is made and the certificate is issued.  The said membership advice was subscribed in the name of complainant from her Bulandshahr address, as stated uspra in item no. 6 (c ).  The date of birth of complainant was 24.12.1993 and therefore the date of maturity of this investment is 24.12.2014.  The complainant has failed to inform her change in address  to opposite party till date.

 (II) The said scheme was foreclosed w.,e.f. 31.3.2004, as per the decisions taken by the Administrator of the Specified undertaking of Unit Trust of India. Before the date of said termination, option was given to all unit holders under RUP-II either to opt for payment of the terminal proceeds or for conversion of the terminal proceeds ito 6.60% tradable tax free Bonds guaranteed by Government of India.  Accordingly, option forms were sent to all the investor on 15.12.2003 at their last available address by ordinary post including the complainant.  A copy of option form sent to the unit holders is enclosed as Annexure ‘A”.  Further, as per the terms of the Offer, it no option form is received from the investors up to 16.2.2004, he or she will be issued the ARS Bonds in lieu of the investments under the said scheme.  The option was advertised in the Nation Dailies including The Indian Express publication dated 24.12.2003 marked and enclosed as Annexure ‘B’.  As per well established law, Press release in the National Newspaper amounted to Constructive notice to all unit holder.

(III) It is submitted that  since no option  form was received from complainant, the terminal proceeds of outstanding units at the time of foreclosure against said RUP-II membership advice amounting Rs.24128.78 was divided by the face value of a bond i.e. Rs.100/- and converted in default option into following Government of India Tradable tax free bond certificate in favour of Isha Singh, in terms of the said offer.

        However, the printing of the corresponding bond certificate was under abeyance on account of non-availability of the details of the guardian (father/mother/lawful guardian) in the records and intimation/objection letters were sent to all such holders including complainant for furnishing the requisite details.

(IV). It is submitted that opposite party has neither received any option form for redemption, as averred in para no. 5 of complaint nor any legal notice, as stated in para no. 10 of complaint and she may be put to strict proof thereof.  The complainant has neither mentioned any dispatch details nor produced any proof of its receipt at the office of opposite party.  The Opposite party maintain that such averments are just an afterthought in order to cover up her lapse.  The averment of complainant that she did not accepted the bond certificate sent to her, is totally false and denied since the question of sending the bond certificate does not arise when the same is under abeyance on account of non-availability of the details of the guardian. Hence, the opposite party humbly brushes aside the averments of complainant.  The correspondence of complainant was suitably replied vide letter dated 29.9.2007 (Copy enclosed as Annexure ‘C’) advising the procedural requirements for ARS Bond certificate together with its interest cheques.  It may also be appreciated that signature of the complainant during her minority cannot be obtained, however on her attaining majority on 24.12.2011, she was also advised to send her signature attested by her guardian or bank manager together with her bank account details vide intimation letter sent at her last available correct address.  However, complainant instead of complying with the simple prescribed procedural requirements has resorted to file this vexatious complaint with misleading statements.

Here also the OP has stated that a sum of Rs.24,100/- alongwith interest @ 6.6% p.a. w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 is payable to the complainant on completion of formalities.  It has further stated that since the ARS Bond Certificate has matured and ceased to exist w.e.f. 1.4.2009, no further interest is payable to the complainant.

          We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

          The complainant has placed on record a copy of the notice dated 25.2.2006 which was served on the OPs seeking refund of the amount alongwith 18% interest.  The complainant has also placed on record a copy of the postal receipt vide which this notice was sent to the OP.  The OP in its written statements had  denied service of the aforesaid notice. The complainant has however, given sufficient proof of service of the notice on the OP.   We therefore, hold that a notice of 25.2.2006 had been served on the OP seeking the refund of amount invested under the scheme.  The OP has failed to give any reason as to why it did not act on the notice dated 25.2.2006.  It clearly establishes a case of deficiency in service on part of the OP.  Admittedly, the complainant had changed her address and had not exercised option as was required of her on the premature closure of the original scheme floated by the OP but it was the duty of the OP to have paid the amount invested under the scheme after a request had been made by the complainant to that effect. 

          We therefore, direct the OP as under:-

          In case No. 165/2012

1. Pay to the complainant the amount of the bond as its stood on 25.2.2006 alongwith interest @ 10% per annum till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) as cost of litigation .

In case No. 166/2012

1. Pay to the complainant the amount of the bond as its stood on 25.2.2006 alongwith interest @ 10% per annum till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) as cost of litigation .

The original order shall  be kept in complaint No. 165/2012 and its copy shall be kept in Complaint no. 166.2012.

          The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which Op shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.  If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Copy of the order be made available to parties free of cost as per law.

          File be consigned to R/R.

        Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________

                   ( S N SHUKLA )                   ( RAKESH KAPOOR )

          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT