National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijay Shakti vs Unit Trust Of India & Anr. on 22 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.2828 OF 2007 (From the order dated 10.04.2007 in Appeal No.845/2005 of the State Commission, Punjab) Vijay Shakti Petitioner Versus Unit Trust of India & Anr. Respondents BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.L.R.Goyal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Parveen Mehdiratta, Advocate Pronounced on 22nd November, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Vijay Shakti (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.845/2005 wherein Unit Trust of India and another were Respondents.
According to the Petitioner/complainant, she had purchased 2000 units under Respondents Raj Lakshmi Units Scheme for Rs.20,000/- in the name of her granddaughter. The scheme was to mature on 29.12.2009 and the maturity amount assured was Rs.2,60,000/-. In January, 2003 when Petitioner approached the Respondents about the status of the Scheme it was confirmed that it would be paid on maturity. However, in March, 2003 she was informed that if she wanted to withdraw from the Scheme, she would get Rs.1,30,000/- with interest and other benefits. Petitioner, therefore, decided to withdraw from the said Scheme on 20.03.2003 and wrote a letter of consent accordingly. However, Petitioner was shocked to receive only Rs.66,223/- through 3 cheques from the Respondent. She, therefore, approached the Respondents in the matter who informed her that the Scheme had been terminated on 30.09.2000 and she had been paid the due amount. In view of the fact that the Scheme was terminated without even informing the Petitioner, leave alone her consent, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of illegal trade practice as well as deficiency in service and requested that Respondent be directed to return the balance amount of Rs.63,777/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 30.09.2000 till the date of realization, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- as the litigation cost.
Respondents while confirming that the Scheme was terminated w.e.f. 01.10.2000 refuted the Petitioners contention that she would be given an assured amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as on March, 2003. In fact, the Scheme did not promise any particular percentage of return but indicated an implicit return varying between 16.16% and 16.75% on an annualized basis. The brochure for the Scheme also clearly stated that the investment in the Scheme was subject to market risks. Petitioners contention that the Scheme was terminated without informing the unit holders is not correct because letters were addressed to all unit holders along with option forms before the date of redemption requesting them to exercise the option either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to any other scheme. A notice to this effect was also issued in newspapers as well as in UTI Bulletins. In the instant case, the Petitioner did not furnish any option, however, Respondent was able to return the amount on the basis of earning as assured i.e. about 16.66% per annum upto 30.09.2000 when the Scheme had stopped earning any interest. Respondents stated that termination of the Scheme had withstood judicial scrutiny and there was no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of the Respondents.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint by observing as follows:
The opposite parties have taken the stand that they had intimated about the termination of the scheme prior to the date of termination and as per the rules if no consent is given the unit certificate holder is not entitled to any further benefit under the scheme. Copy of the letter dated 20.08.2000 is Annexure-C. No evidence, however, has been led by the opposite parties about its dispatch or receipt by the complainants. It is also not shown if the bulletin carrying the condition that no income would be accrued on redemption proceeds after the maturity dates was ever sent at the address of the complainants. In the circumstances, therefore, without proving that the termination of the scheme had been conveyed to the complainants they cannot be deprived of the proceeds of the certificates. The redemption money has been paid after the complainant applied for the same on 20.03.2003. The scheme terminated in the year 2000.
For all these years, the opposite parties used the money of the complainant (units holders). The opposite parties have failed to show if after the termination of the scheme and absence of any option they could retain the amount. Rather, it was the duty of the opposite parties to have refunded the redemption amount whatsoever after the scheme was closed. Thus, by their not doing so they have exhibited deficiency of service.
The District Forum, therefore, directed the Respondents jointly and severally to pay compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from two months after the closure of the scheme till payment with Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same by observing as follows:
The UTI was well within its rights to terminate the scheme as per the provisions of the scheme and, accordingly, letters were written to all the unit holders to send their options to get the same redeemed to get the amount invested in another scheme. The reminders were also published in the UTI Bulletins calling the unit holders to redeem the units as on Sept.30, 2000. Since the complainant did not give any option, the redeemed amount of units was paid to them as aforesaid. The District Forum had wrongly observed that the UTI was deficient in retaining the amount belonging to the complainants after the closure of the scheme. After the termination of the scheme, the appellants asked for the options of the unit holders and published reminders. The complainant failed to approach the UTI for the redemption of the units even after the dispatch of the letter and publication of reminders in the UTI bulletins. The publication of reminders in the UTI bulletins amounted to constructive notice and the complainants should have approached the appellants for the redeemed value of the units, but the complainant failed to do so. Thus, the appellant after giving notices in the Bulletins paid him the redeemed value of the units as per the scheme. By doing so, the appellants cannot be held deficient in rendering service.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the contention that Petitioner had not received any communication from the Respondent either about the termination of the scheme nor was the Petitioner given a chance to exercise any option. Further, while these facts may have been published in the UTI bulletins, these bulletins were only for in-house circulation and were not sent to the unit holders. Counsel for Petitioner further contended that no newspaper in Patiala where the Petitioner resides had carried any such intimation from the Respondents.
Counsel for Respondent pointed out that in the Scheme itself there was a provision for possible termination for specified reason which had to be resorted to in respect of the Scheme. He reiterated that when the Scheme was terminated on 30.09.2000 wide publicity was given to it through bulletins, newspaper and through personal letters.
Further, unit holders were also given options. Therefore, Petitioners contention that the Scheme was terminated to their disadvantage behind their back and without giving due notice is not borne out by the concrete evidence which was also produced before the Fora below. Further, the termination of the Scheme had been challenged before the Rajasthan High Court which confirmed that there was no illegality or infirmity in its termination and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) 4320/2002 was filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the Rajasthan High Court was also dismissed by the Apex Court as having no merits.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have carefully considered the evidence on record. The facts regarding purchase of 2000 units of the Scheme by the Petitioner and termination of the Scheme by the Respondent are not in dispute. As pointed out by the Counsel for Respondent, we note that the Scheme was terminated as per Clause XXVII of the Scheme which provided for such termination. We also note that letters were issued regarding termination of the Scheme to each of unit holders on August 20, 2009 wherein option forms were also issued.
While it is possible that the letter may not have reached all the unit holders including Petitioner, we find that the termination of the Scheme was widely publicised not only through UTI Bulletins but also through advertisements in leading national newspapers e.g. The Times of India. These notices, as observed by the State Commission amounted to constructive notice to all unit holders. Petitioner, therefore, cannot take the plea that the Scheme was terminated without due notice. So far as taking the consent of the unit holders is concerned, this argument is not tenable because as stated earlier, in the Scheme itself there is a provision regarding its possible termination. In view of the above facts and because viable options were also offered to unit holders on termination of the Scheme, we agree with the finding of the State Commission that Respondents cannot be held responsible or guilty of deficiency in service. Further, the Honble Supreme Court has confirmed that there was no illegality or infirmity on the part of UTI in respect of the termination of the Scheme. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission in toto and dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
...
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/