State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Unit Trust Of India vs Jyoti on 4 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.900 of 2013 Date of Institution: 06.12.2013 Date of Decision: 04.04.4014 Unit Trust of India (now UTI Technology Services Limited) through its Branch Manager, branch office SCO 70, Ist Floor Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. Appellant (Opposite Party) Versus Jyoti d/o Sh. Virakbhan R/o Gangtan, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar. Respondent (Complainant) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. Present: Shri B.J. Singh, Advocate for appellant. Shri Pradeep Chahar, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (ORAL):
Unit Trust of India (for short UTI) has filed the present appeal against the order dated October 22nd, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar.
2. UTI launched Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 (hereinafter referred as Scheme, 1992) exclusively for the benefits of women. Under the said Scheme, Virk Bhan Ahlawat, purchased 200 units in the name his daughter Jyoti-complainant (respondent) on September 13th, 1993. The date of maturity was September 13th, 2011 and the maturity amount assured was `30,000/-.
3. The UTI paid an amount of `5774/- to the respondent on October 7, 2011 instead of Rs.30,000/-. She filed the complaint before the District Forum, Jhajjar.
The District Forum accepted the complaint. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:-
.it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of `24,226/-
(`30,000/- the maturity amount (minus) `5774/- already paid to the complainant on 7.10.201) as balance payment to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 13.9.2011 till actual realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of `2000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that a decision was taken to terminate the scheme w.e.f. October 1, 2000 and as such the amount under the scheme was to be paid upto October 1, 2000 which the UTI had already paid.
5. Termination of the scheme has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 4320/2002 titled Madju Soni versus Unit Trust of India, vide judgment dated July 8th, 2002.
6. In Revision Petition No.2828 of 2007, Vijay Shakti versus Unit Trust of India & Anr, decided on November 22nd, 2011, it was held by Honble National Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the UTI in respect of the termination of the Scheme.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
8. The statutory amount of `16,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced:
04.04.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL