UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. MANJULATA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. M. Patnaik the learned Counsel for the appellant - U. T. I. None appears for the complainant-respondent. Considering the nature of the present appeal/revision, we have thought it appropriate to dispose of the matter even in the absence of the complainant.

(2.) The complainant approached the District Forum with an allegation that though she purchased 500 units under Mastergain-92 scheme certificates for a face value of Rs.5,000/- from the U. T. I. she did not receive the certificate. In the absence of such certificate, she could not receive the payment of the enhanced value of the unit which then stood of prevalent as Rs.18/- instead of Rs.10/- which was the original value of each unit at the time of purchasing the certificates.

(3.) The case of the present appellant was, infact the certificates bearing Nos.02158-066 to 021358070 under Folio No. E2463882 were despatched to the complainant by regd. post on 20.11.1992 at the address given in the application form. They relied on Ext. A the 'postal Bulk' showing the Post Offie receiving the certificates for despatch. Therefore, they said there was no deficiency of service.