(1.) AFORESAID two C.D. cases were filed by husband and wife respectively, alleging unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service against the Appellants in withholding payment of full value of units after termination of the scheme under Monthly Income Plan -95.
(2.) AS both the C.D. cases were based on similar facts and law and relief sought for were same, the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar has passed a common order on 04 -05 -2004. In this end of the view, we are also inclined to pass a common order in both the appeals mentioned above for the snake of convenience.
(3.) THE Appellants have challenged the aforesaid findings orders mainly on the ground that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that Appellants have caused no deficiency in service or were not indulged into unfair trade practice as the investment in the scheme is subject to market rate risk and Net Asset Value, in short, N.A.V.. Therefore, no guarantee or assurance about the performance of the Scheme was assured by the Appellants to the Respondent. Moreover, the District Forum wrongly allowed the C.D. cases in part, having arrived at a clear finding that Appellants have caused no deficiency in service.