Order no. 11 dated 10.7.2015
The case of the complainant in short is that they purchased four Unit certificates with its maturity value of Rs.1,55,550/- . It is alleged that on 19.12.2013 the complainants submitted those certificates with other documents in the office of the OP no.3 but it is noticed by them that the maturity cheque was issued in their favour as per Op’s letter no. 346869 dated 31.12.2013 . Regarding this subject the complainant submitted a letter dated 15.1.2014 informing the oPs that the maturity amount was not received by them . In support of the claim the complainant enclosed Xerox copy of Bank’s statement for the year 1996-1997. Besides, the complainant approached their Banker S.B.I. Chinsurah branch OP no.4 on 3.2.2014 requesting them for a statement during the period of 1996 but that was not available on the ground that those are destroyed as of old records. Again , on 17.2.2014 the complainant further requested to the S.B.I. for statement from 1.12.1996 to 31.12.1997 . In this connection, it is stated by the complainant that unfortunately on 17.1.2014 the Pass book of the A/C no. C/18229 relating to 1996-1997 was lost while on movement outside. A G/D was lodged with Chinsurah Police station . Upon repeated requests in this subject OP no.3 failed to satisfy the complainant by expressing that they are “sorry”. The complainants further alleged that the OP without proper verification of the address appearing in the certificate, how they made payment. Thus, they made specific allegation of deficiency of service against the op no.2 and 3 and as such the petitioners claimed that they are entitled to get compensation of Rs.60,000/- plus payment of Rs.1,55,550/- with 18% interest since 1996.
In order to support the case some documents are filed by the complainants viz copies of four UTI certificates and applications dated 19.12.2013, 15.1.2014 Pass book statement for the year 1996, 1997 and some other letters dated 17.2.14, 3.2.14, 17.1.14 along with redemption report dated 11.2.2014 and 31.12.13.
Ops no. 1-3 contested the case by filing Written version challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action since maturity value was received and encashed by the complainants before 2.1.1997 with due intimation to them. Even thereafter the complainants filed this case under malafide intention. Admittedly the scheme was terminated on 1.12.1996 and redemption proceeds have already been dispatched to the recorded address of the complainants without calling back the original certificates according to the decision of Unit Trust of India. In this connection, the necessary particulars of the cheque and its payment date together with other information together with cheque no. , date, amount, MICR no. are furnished in the written version . Secondly, this case is barred by limitation as for the scheme was ended by way of termination in the year 1996. That apart, the records being of old dated and thereby those were destroyed . As regard to the statement appearing in the Written version , certain documents viz. redemption report etc.
Upon the cases of the both parties the following issues are framed :
ISSUES
Whether the case is maintainable in present form ?
If there is any cause of action ?
Whether the case is barred by law of limitation ?
Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the issues are taken up together for discussion as they are interlinked each other.
Learned Advocate for the complainants argued that the complainants are senior citizen . The original documents viz. four UTI certificates were not traceable and thereby they had forgotten that they had purchased four certificates . After long days namely in the year 2013 they all on a sudden got the certificates . Now , they approached before the Ops for its redemption . Ops are trying to convince that they have paid the entire amount . This is totally absurd . The Bank account does not show such payment in credit of the complainants. Thus, the Ops should pay the maturity value at an early date. Accordingly, the complainants approached before them but they do not care for it. Ultimately, the complainants came before the Forum for relief in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Relevant documents are produced . Ld. Advocate pointed out through his argument that the claim for redemption is proved and as such the case should be allowed by giving direction upon the Ops for payment.
The advoate for the ops made his reply that everything is based on record. The date of payment including detailed particulars of the cheques was duly intimated to the complainants in replying to the various applications made by the complainants. The date of payment was unequivocally mentioned in the written version and there is no counter objection from the complainants . Moreover, the complainants are taking plea that their Bank pass book was lost which is very much significant in the context of denial of payment. Mentioning this point ld. Advocate for the Ops has drawn our attention that this much the Ops can present their case particularly in the situation when the entire documents were destroyed u/s 15 of SEBI Regulations 1993. Relevant provisions are discussed by the learned Advocate. Moreover, this is a case of 18 years back and therefore, it is not possible to rake up all the required features in order to focus the entire aspect of the present issue involved in this case. Under such facts and circumstances , the case is exclusively barred by law of limitation. In conclusion, ld. Advocate claims that the allegation of deficiency of service is totally baseless, imaginary and bereft of proof and thereby the same should be dismissed.
We have carefully considered the case of both parties together with their submissions and documents on record. It appears that the period of UTI certificates was terminated with effect from 1.12.1996 and accordingly its maturity value was paid . In this connection, the particulars of cheque nos. and date of payment are produced by the Ops which are not challenged by the strength of cogent evidence from the end of the complainants. Apart from that , the present case suffers from the law of limitation.
In view of the facts and circumstances it is held and decided that there is no valid cause of action for presentation of this case with the allegation of deficiency of service against the Ops and the same is also barred by limitation. Thus all the issues are disposed of accordingly.
Hence it is ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
