VARDAN SINGH RANA Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 24.8.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 472 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, are that the father of the complainant purchased units, each having face value of Rs. 10/ -, under a scheme, with certificate Numbers i.e. 1480 (4069442201914), 1970 (4069442201913), 2000 (406950030004415), 3000 (406950030003399) and 990 (4069442201915 respectively in his (complainant's) name. It was stated that the said scheme floated by the OP was known as "Children's Gift Growth Fund Unit Scheme 1986" under which all children were entitled to the maturity amount, on attaining the age of majority i.e. either 18 years or 21 years, as the case may be. It was further stated that the complainant having born on 06th July, 1992 attained the age of majority on 06th July, 2010, as per the School Certificate. He accordingly approached the OP on 06.07.2010, to lodge claim, with respect to the maturity value of the said bonds. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to know that the amount due to him, had already been paid/encashed on 28.04.2009 and 29.4.2009. The OP refused to give any further details. It was further stated that the maturity value of the amount was never paid to the complainant. It was further stated that this act of the OP amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant was entitled to receive the maturity value of the units in the sum of Rs.3,49,878/ - (Rs.2,81,498/ - and Rs.68385/ -respectively withdrawn on 28.4.2009 and 29.4.2009 respectively) being the legal and rightful claimant. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called as the Act only) was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OP, wherein, it admitted the fact that the Bonds in question, were subscribed in the name of Vardan Singh Rana complainant, R/o H.No.496, Ward No.7, Jawahar Nagar, Ambala City, under CGGF -86 Scheme. It was stated that consequent upon the termination of CGGF Scheme w.e.f. 31.3.2004, the proceeds of the Unit Certificates, held by the complainant, were converted into ARS Bond Certificates, and were sent at the address mentioned in the Bonds. It was further stated that the converted Bond Certificates, as well as the cheque of maturity value alongwith interest in favour of the complainant, were sent at the address mentioned in the same (Bonds), which were received by one Indira Rani. It was further stated that this indicated that the complainant and Indra Rani, being the residents of the same premises, were related to each other. It was further stated that the OP addressed the Brochure Option Letter on 15.12.2003, sent by post, to all eligible unit holders at their last available recorded address, before the date of foreclosure, intimating them about the foreclosure of scheme, and giving them the option either for payment of redemption proceeds, or for conversion of redemption proceeds to 6.60% Tax Free ARS Bonds guaranteed by the Govt, of India. It was further stated that the printing of corresponding bond certificates was kept in abeyance on account of non -availability of details of guardian (father/mother/lawful guardian) in the Records and objection/intimation letters together with guardian updation forms, were sent to all such holders including the complainant, at his recorded Ambala Address. It was further stated that one Smt.Indra Rani submitted Guardian Updation Form together with her letter dated 05.10.2005 giving bank details of ac -. count No.8543, Bank of India, Railway Road, Ambala City, and her attested signatures by the said Banker. Being identified as the bonafide guardian of the complainant, the OP issued the cheques, in the name of the complainant. It was further stated that the OP had acted as per their Rules and were not deficient in rendering service. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied.