HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Sh. Ram Murti Singh Rana, father of the complainant purchased units of Children Gift Growth Fund, 1986 in the name of the complainant who was a minor at that time.  The complainant was born on 06.07.1992 and therefore, became a major on 06.07.2010.  When he approached the petitioner for payment of the value of the units, he was told that the same had already been paid on 28.04.2009/29.04.2009.  He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation comprising maturity value of the units. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia stated in its reply that on termination of CGGF with effect from 13.03.2004, the unit certificates were converted into ARS Bond Certificates since no option was exercised by the complainant for redemption of the units.  This is also the case of the petitioner that Smt. Indira Rani, mother of the complainant submitted guardian updation form alongwith a letter from the bank giving the details of a bank account in the name of the complainant.  The signatures of Smt. Indira Rani had been attested by the bank.  Her name was accordingly updated as the guardian of the complainant and a cheque in the name of the complainant with his account number printed on it, was sent to Smt. Indira Rani. 

3.      The District Forum having dismissed the Consumer Complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 20.12.2011, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,49,878/- to the complainant with interest as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.  Compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/- was also awarded.  The State Commission also directed payment of penal interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 08.07.2010 in case the payment was not made within thirty days of the receipt of the order.  The petitioner was given liberty to recover the said amount from Smt. Indira Rani.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission. 

4.      The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was justified in updating the name of Smt. Indira Rani in place of the name of the father of the complainant as his guardian, on the basis of the updation form submitted by Smt. Indira Rani.  This updation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was carried out in the year 2005 whereas father of the complainant had expired way back in the year 1995.  He also submits that Smt. Indira Rani had submitted a Birth Certificate in which her name was shown as the mother of the complainant and therefore, the petitioner bonafidely believed that she was the mother of the complainant and accordingly updated her name in the record and sent a cheque to her which was duly encashed. 

5.      The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand is that Smt. Indira Rani was not the natural mother of the complainant she being the second wife of his father.  Mr. Mehdiratta, on the other hand, submits that she was the first wife of Sh. Ram Murti Singh and it was stated so by the complainant in his affidavit filed before the District Forum.  Irrespective of whether she was the first wife or she was the second wife of the father of the complainant, the fact remains that she was not the natural mother of the complainant.  The name of the natural mother of the complainant was very well known to the petitioner before the name of Smt. Indira Rani was updated as the guardian of the complainant in the year 2005.  A certificate was issued by the petitioner in March 1995, in which the name of the mother of the complainant was given as Smt. Praveen Kumari.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investments were made in different crunches and at the time of first purchase, the name of the mother of the complainant was not disclosed to the petitioner though it was disclosed at the time of the investment made vide certificate issued in March 1995.  What is material is that by the time the updation was carried out, the petitioner knew it very well that the name of the natural mother of the complainant was Smt. Praveen Kumari.  Therefore, the petitioner was grossly negligent in updating the name of Smt. Indira Rani as his mother, on the basis of the form received by it even if she had opened a bank account as the guardian of the complainant and the updation form was accordingly attested by the concerned banker. 

6.      The complainant having been deprived of his rightful dues on account of the gross negligence of the petitioner, which updated the name of Smt. Indira Rani as his mother despite knowing many years earlier that the name of his natural mother was Smt. Praveen Kumari, the petitioner is certainly required to pay the rightful dues of the complainant to him. 

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction except as regards penal interested awarded by the State Commission.  The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with the modification that if the entire principal amount i.e. the amount paid by the petitioner to Smt. Indira Rani is paid to the complainant within eight weeks from today, the penal interest in terms of the said order shall not be payable.  The petitioner will initiate legal action, within three months from today, to recover from Smt. Indira Rani whatever amount it has to pay to the complainant in terms of this order. The complainant shall be impleaded as a party to such legal proceedings.  If the payment in terms of this order is not made within eight weeks, the complainant will be entitled even to penal interest awarded by the State Commission.  If the petitioner is able to recover any interest from Smt. Indira Rani on the amount which it has paid to her, that amount shall also be paid to the complainant as soon as the same is recovered from Smt. Indira Rani.  If the petitioner does not initiate legal action to recover the principal amount and interest on that amount from Smt. Indira Rani within three months from today, the complainant will be entitled to recover the amount of interest from Smt. Indira Rani by way of legal proceedings.  The amount lying deposited with this Commission, shall be released to the complainant and the balance amount if any, shall be paid within eight weeks in compliance of this order.