UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ramesh Chandra Saxena, complainant in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh vide Complaint Case No.112 of 1998 averred that he had an investment of Rs.12,000/- under MISC 9011 Scheme, Cumulative growth on 15.1.1991 which was to mature after seven years on 1.1.1998. After the date of maturity, he contacted M/s. Unit Trust of India, Branch at Chandigarh seeking their assistance in obtaining maturity payment. The Registrar of M/s. Unit Trust of India in reply averred that Cheque No. M-142882-885 for the total sum of Rs.30,240/- was sent to him on 27.12.1997 by an official Ms. Anupam of the branch. This amount, the complainant did not receive and failed to get it despite his efforts. He, therefore, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, U. T. , Chandigarh and prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.30,240/- the maturity value along with interest @ 24% per annum, and compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment. The District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh found that opposite parties - M/s. Unit Trust of India, New Delhi and Chandigarh were guilty of deficiency in service. The District Forum found merit in the case and directed the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of Rs.30,350/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.1.1998 till payment and costs of Rs.550/-. Aggrieved against the judgment of the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh, the respondent now appellant has attempted Appeal No.116 of 2000 dated 22.6.2000.

(2.) The respondent/complainant made an investment of Rs.12,000/- by purchasing 1200 units floated by the appellant Corporation-U. T. I. under MISG 90 (11) Scheme. The scheme matured on 1.1.1998. The respondent made all efforts and wrote number of letters to the appellant after maturity date but the maturity proceeds did not reach him. The appellants in their written statement filed jointly repudiated the claim of the respondent besides raising preliminary objection that the case has been contested merely on the ground that the maturity value of the certificate by way of two cheques, one of Rs.25,000/- and other of Rs.5,200/- were dispatched to the respondent at Varanasi address. It has also been averred that the said cheques were got encashed by some person and case F. I. R. No.1046/98 stood registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police. Though the culprits had been arrested, the case against him was pending in the Patiala House, New Delhi. In view of this, the appellant averred that the complaint was not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service on their part. The appellants have further averred that the fault lies with the Postal Authorities and the Bank and they have not been impleaded in the case.

(3.) The respondent/complainant in the rejoinder specified that he had not received the maturity cheques in spite of the fact that he had written to the appellants way back in 1997 giving his correct Chandigarh address as also account number held by him in Punjab National Bank, Sector 19, Chandigarh. Had the appellant written that account number on the face of the cheques, the same could not have been encashed. The respondent who argued his case in person submitted that the appellant-U. T. I. did not send the cheques at the correct Chandigarh address of respondent which was communicated to them and was being maintained in the records. The respondent never resided at Varanasi but still the cheques were sent by the appellant to the respondent at the address of Varanasi. Not only this, these cheques did not reach Varanasi and were intercepted at Delhi and were got encashed. The respondent further contended that he had been contacting the appellant-U. T. I. about the payment and the U. T. I, had been telling him to contact the banker about the payment. Since the respondent was concerned with the appellant-U. T. I. , hence he had been contacting the U. T. I. about the payment and there was no need for the (? ).