THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
APPEAL NO.204/2012
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. Mr.Niranjan Das Bhandary,
S/o Late M.Sanjeeva Bhandary,
Aged about 54 years
...Appellant/s
2. Akshitha
Aged about 22 years,
D/o Niranjan Das Bhandary
Both are R/at Shiva Kripa,
Kammaje, Bellur post, Via Jodu Marga,
Bantwal Taluk,
D.K.District, PIN-574211
(By Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate)
-Versus-
UTI Technologies Services Ltd,
F-02, Souza Arcade,
Opp: Jyothi Talkies,
Balmatta Road,
Mangaluru-1 ...Respondent/s
Represented by its
Manager,
(Sri.G.Veerendra Babu, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/complainant preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mangalore in complaint No.333/2010 and submits that he had taken a unit certificate bearing No.R933037000728 consisting of Rs.1,000/- units and face value of the unit is Rs.10/-. The date of maturity of the said unit certificate was 17-10-2020. The maturity value of the unit of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant after maturity sought for payment of the assured amount, but the Opposite Party /Respondent had not complied, hence the complainant has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the assured amount of Rs.1,80,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service.
2. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay only Rs.34,370/- with interest @10% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- litigation expenses. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The Opposite Party/Respondent ought to pay maturity value of the unit certificate to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- as agreed. The District Commission failed to appreciate, they have filed the complaint after lapse of maturity only and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the respondent/Opposite Party in not paying the said amount. But the said facts were not considered and the meager amount of Rs.34,370/- was directed to be pay. Hence, prays to modify the order passed by the District Commission and directed to pay Rs.1,80,000/-.
3. Heard.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents, it is noticed that, the said certificate was issued by the Unit Trust of India. As per the Unit Trust of India Act and the said scheme was terminated on 30.9.2000 itself as per the Parliament Direction. In this regard the Respondent/ Opposite Party had published in the leading News papers and also details of the termination was informed to the investor and they have also announced for payment of the termination unit value on submission of the original unit certificate.
5. We notice here that the complainant has not noticed the said announcement and waited for maturity and tendered the certificate for payment of the matured value. The District Commission after noticing all these had directed to pay termination value of the unit amounting to Rs.34,370/-. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law, when as per direction given by the Parliament itself, the entire scheme was terminated in the year 2000 itself. When the scheme was terminated the question of payment of maturity amount does not arise. The complainant does not get any reliefs as prayed in the complaint and the same time there was no deficiency in service. No interference requires. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Mangaluru in CC.No.333/2010 is confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
