By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-
The gist of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.03.2008 in an investment scheme of opposite parties namely long term advantages Fund services II, Dividend plan-Re-investment. He invested the money on the assurance given by the opposite party No.2 who is the broker of UTI mutual fund, that the amount would double after three years. But the opposite parties refused to pay the assured amount and paid only Rs.1,40,348/-. This is unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. So the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,59,652/- to the complainant which is the difference of assured amount and actually paid amount and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
2. The opposite party filed version admitting the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant. But there was no assurance or promise that the deposit would double after three years. The investments in mutual funds are subject to market risk. On Ext.A1 itself, as per clause 14, the complainant is advised to refer to the offer document for details and risk factors applicable to the schemes. Chapter IV of the offer document deals with RISK FACTORS. As per the clause-I of the RISK FACTORS mutual funds and securities investments are subject to market risks and the MAV of the units issued under the scheme may up or down depending on the factors and forces affecting the capital market. As per clause 6 and 7 of Chapter IV. Unit holders in the scheme are not offered any guaranteed returns. The opposite party have invested the funds collected under the scheme as per the portfolio mentioned in the offer document. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence they pray for an order dismissing the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 on the side of the complainant. The Opposite party No.1 was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2.
4. The matters to be decided are as follows:-
Point No.1: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
5. Point No.1 :- Ext.A1 is the only document given to the complainant before investing the money with the opposite party. It highlights the possible benefits the depositor can get in the future. It describes the achieved benefits of UTI Long Term Advantage Fund Series I and describes the even more possibilities of UTI long term Advantage Fund Series II. In short, Ext.A1 shows the customer the bright picture of growing money. As a last line in the Ext.A1 in very small letters the intended depositors are directed to read the offer letter. The offer letter is not given to the depositor even after investing the money. Risk factors are revealed only in the offer letter. In short, for canvasing business the bright possibilities are highlighted and risk factors are very cleverly concealed from the customers. The opposite parties did not reveal how they invested the money deposited by the complainant. So there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties.
6. Point No.2 :- There is no specific assurance by the opposite parties to increase the deposit by three times. He has received Rs.1,40,348/- for his deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. So the complainant is not entitled to get the amount prayed for in the complaint. But he is entitled to get a reasonable amount as compensation.
Hence the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to give Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to give interest on the ordered amount at rate of 9% from the date of the order till payment.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31st January 2012.
Date of Filing:02.09.2011.
