National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mansi Gupta vs Unit Trust Of India (Uti) on 17 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1421 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 01/05/2015 in Appeal No. 417/2014 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. MANSI GUPTA D/O DR.D.D GUPTA, HOUSE NO-Q-7,H.B COLONY KELESTON, DISTRICT : SHIMLA - 171001 H.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA (UTI) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UTI TOWER, PLOT NO-3,SECTOR-11 CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI - 400614 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Dr. Devi Dayal Gupta, father as well as
Authorised Representative of petitioner For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Aug 2015 ORDER
1. Petitioner/Complainant has preferred this revision against impugned order dated 01.05.2015, passed by H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short as 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.417 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are, that petitioner filed a complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short (as Act') against Respondent/Opposite Party, claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by respondent. It is stated that respondent had launched a scheme Raj Lakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992, (RUS-92) as an exclusive scheme for the benefit of women. Parents of petitioner purchased the units for maturity amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and 1,12,500/- on 30.12.1992 and 7.10.1993. The petitioner has claimed that she received a letter dated 30.9.2011, vide which respondent terminated the scheme and paid Rs.33,297.62p, instead of Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs.21,443.26p, instead of Rs.1,12,500/- as promised at the time of purchase of these units. The petitioner states that this being the part payment, respondent was requested to pay the remaining amount. However, respondent clarified vide its letter about the termination of the scheme on 20.8.2000. Therefore, petitioner has claimed that termination and closure of the scheme to be wrong and illegal being without any notice to the petitioner right from the year 2002 to 2012. Thus, petitioner has claimed that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner sought direction to the respondent to pay the balance amount along with interest and further damages for mental harassment including litigation expenses.
3. Respondent in its written statement has stated, that Unit Trust of India had been set up by the Govt. under Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, and scheme was started in year 1992, which was terminated w.e.f 30.9.2000 after the Act was repealed, w.e.f 29.10.2002. Thereafter, the trust has been bifurcated into two entities namely, The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India and (ii) The UTI Trustee Company Private Limited. Further, termination of the scheme has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Commission. The factum of termination of the scheme had been duly notified and published in daily newspaper circulated throughout the country and investors were called upon to redeem the units as on 30.9.2000, vide letter dated 20.8.2000. It is further stated, that when petitioner applied for payment of redemption proceedings on 16.9.2011, the amount was released to the petitioner as was due, on the termination of the scheme. Hence, respondent denied any liability to pay the interest including such maturity value as pleaded and claimed by the petitioner. The respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Shimla H.P. (for short, 'District Forum') dismissed the complaint, vide order dated 8.9.2014.
5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which also dismissed the same vide its impugned order.
6. Hence, present petition.
7. Dr. Devi Dayal Gupta, the authorized representative of petitioner has argued the case. I have gone through the entire record.
8. The main argument of authorized representative of petitioner is, that petitioner did not receive any termination notice from the respondent. It was only in 2012, petitioner came to know for the first time that the scheme has been terminated.
9. Notice of termination of the scheme in question was issued by the respondent in the year 2002.
10. In this regard, District Forum held;
"The only dispute pertains to the maturity value to the units of the complainant as the complainant has pleaded and claimed the maturity value of the units as on the date of the maturity whereas the OP has pleaded and claimed termination of the scheme as on 30.9.2000 and as such, paid the amount due on the date of termination of the scheme. It is not disputed that the OP has paid to the complainant the amount equivalent which was due at the time of termination of the scheme and the complainant has sought rest of the amount as the complainant has claimed that no notice has ever been served to the complainant for the termination of the scheme whereas the OP has claimed that the scheme was terminated after giving due publication including notice to the investors vide letter dated 20.8.2000 and it has been widely circulated in daily newspaper/bulletin of the OP and the investors were requested to surrender the certificates for redemption and since the complainant failed to surrender the units till the date of maturity when the same were presented and the value of these certificates on the date of termination of the scheme have been paid to the complainant. The OP has been able to prove the vide circulation in the gazette of India Annexure-A and daily newspaper Times of India Annexure-C and bulletin of OP Annexure-C which has been published by the OP to the termination of the scheme and a specific time has been fixed to redeem the certificates on 30.9.2000 after presenting the same by the investors. Therefore, when the statutory body has terminated the scheme after due publication and notification the presumption is to be drawn in favour of the OP that all the investors have been duly informed for termination of the scheme under which the complainant had invested, but, instead of presenting the certificate for redemption on or after 30.9.2000 the complainant waited for the maturity period despite the fact that the scheme had already been terminated w.e.f 30.9.2000 and, as such, the OP has rightly released the amount which was due on the termination of the scheme and the complainant is not entitled for maturity value of the scheme when it had already been terminated including any interest thereon. Therefore, the present complaint is without any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed."
11. The State Commission, while affirming the order of District Forum observed;
"In annexure C-8, whereby the appellant was informed that she was not entitled to the maturity value of the certificates, as mentioned therein, because of the scheme having been terminated with effect from 30.09.2000, we find mention that she had already been informed through letter August 20th , 2000, copy of which was enclosed.
Similar question was raised before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Revision Petition No.2828 of 2007 titled Vijay Shakti Versus Unit Trust of India & Anr., decided on 22nd November, 2011. Complainant had claimed that she had not been informed of the alleged termination of scheme and newspaper 'Times of India', in which the notice of termination was alleged to have been published, was not in wide circulation in the area, she hailed from, i.e. Patiala. Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the aforesaid plea and dismissed the complaint, upholding the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Since the notice of termination of the scheme was given to the investors, through individual letters, copy annexure C-9, as also by means of publication of notice in newspaper, Times of India and also through various bulletins issued by the respondent, appellant's plea that she was not apprised of the termination of the scheme, cannot be accepted.
We may observe that against the total amount of Rs.17,500/-, invested by the father of the appellant against certificates annexures C-2 & C-3, a total sum of Rs.54, 740/- has been paid to her. That means she has been paid money in excess of the invested amount and this excess amount is equivalent to around 11.5% simple interest per annum on the invested amount.
In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed."
12. It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".
14. In view of the concurrent finding of the facts given by both the Fora below, I hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The present revision petition is thus having no legal merit, the same is hereby dismissed.
15. No order as to cost.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER