State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs The Competent Authority on 29 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1831 of 2010
Date of institution : 19.10.2010
Date of decision : 29.10.2010
Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Municipal Accountant, Dashmesh Colony, Street
No.117/1, Mandi Gobindgarh, now Sh.Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Executive
Officer resident of House No.174, Street No.2, Dashmesh Colony, Sector
25-B, Mandigobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority, Unity Trust of India, Sohan Palace, Opposite
Telephone Exchange 455, The Mall Ludhiana 141001.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
14.9.2010 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.H.C.Angrish, Advocate.
SHRI PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER The appellant has filed appeal on the grounds that the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum") against the law and facts and passed in routine order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant / complainant invested Rs.10,000/- with the respondent under scheme "Raj Luxmi Unit Scheme" (hereinafter referred as RLU Scheme) in the name of his daughter Shifali Sharma on 26.2.1988. At that time she was minor. On the maturity of scheme, the appellant was entitled for Rs.1,10,000/- from the respondent. The appellant approached the respondent on maturity of scheme, but it was disclosed by the respondent that the scheme has already been closed in 2000, but no intimation of closure of scheme was given to the respondent. As such there was deficiency in service on the First Appeal No.1831 of 2010 2 part of the respondent and due to the deficiency of service the appellant suffered mental torture and financial loss. The appellant sent legal notices dated 24.12.2008 and 4.3.2009 to the respondent and the respondent replied the same on 13.3.2008 and had taken false pleas. The complaint was filed with prayer that the respondent may be directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- plus bonus, interest and compensation of Rs.2 lacs.
3. The reply was filed on behalf of the respondent and it was admitted that the appellant had invested Rs.10,000/- in the scheme RLUS in the name of his minor daughter, but the said scheme was terminated w.e.f. 30.9.2000. The scheme was floated by Unit Trust of India but w.e.f. 29.12.2002, but the Unit Trust of India had been bifurcated into two NTTS. The RLUS was scrapped under the power conferred at the time of framing the scheme. The provisions were notified in the official gazette which contains provisions for premature termination of the same. As the termination scheme had already been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay, Patna, Punjab and Haryana High Courts and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh Consumer Redressal Commission and on scrapping of the scheme, the beneficiary was entitled for a sum of Rs.33,603.30P on submission of original certificate. The information regarding the termination scheme was given to the Members of scheme through ordinary post and also in Indian Express on 14.9.2002 and in Amar Ujala on 10.9.2002. It was also pleaded that the appellant was not consumer of the respondent and as such the complaint was not maintainable. The same was also barred by limitation.
3. Parties adduced the evidence in support of their contention.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and going through the documents on record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.9.2010.
5. Hence the appeal.
First Appeal No.1831 of 2010 3
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appeal may be accepted and the impugned order dated 14.9.2010 may be set aside.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant had invested Rs.10,000/- under the RLU scheme of the respondent on 26.2.1988 and on the maturity of the same, the respondent was liable to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as maturity amount to the minor Shefali Sharma but the scheme was terminated by the respondent on 30.9.2000. As the respondent was competent to terminate the same as per clause XXVII of RLU scheme which was published in the official gazette dated 17.4.1993. The termination of the scheme was challenged by the depositors before the Hon'be National Commission in judgment reported in Unit Trust of India vs. Kumari Gouthami and another Vol.1(1996) CPJ-203 (NC) and before the State Commission of Kerala in judgment reported as Union Trust of India vs. Joseph Kunju Vol.I(2001) CPJ-131, but the complaints of the depositors were dismissed by the Hon'ble Natinoal Commission as well as by the State Commission. The Madhya Pradesh State Commission decided the appeal No.275/01 titled as Union Trust of India Vs. Dr.Abhishek Verma on 2.7.2001 regarding the termination of scheme. In that order, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh, State Commission discussed judgments and orders passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court, by which the termination of Raj Luxmi Unit Scheme was upheld.
9. It is pleaded case of the appellant that the amount was invested by him in the name of his daughter namely Shefali Sharma who was born on 26.2.1988. The complaint was filed on 26.2.2010 before the District Forum and Ms.Shefali was major when the complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Forum against the respondent, but no authority letter or Power of Attorney was annexed by the complainant with the complaint on her behalf as she was only the consumer of the respondent. The First Appeal No.1831 of 2010 4 complaint as well as appeal was filed by the appellant himself and not on behalf of his daughter Shefali Sharma. The appellant had not invested any amount or purchased the policy under the scheme in his name, as such he was not the consumer of the respondent. As such the complaint as well as appeal of the appellant is not maintainable.
10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed in limine.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 27.10.2010 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
(Piare Lal Garg) Presiding Member (Mrs.Amarpeet Sharma) Member October 29, 2010.
Davinder