UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. JOSEPH KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question arises for consideration in both these appeals they are being disposed of by this common order. Appeal No.193/99 is by the complainant in O. P. No.222/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, whereas Appeal No.228/99 is by the complainant in O. P. No 533/98 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur. In O. P. No.222/98 the complainant joined on behalf of his two grand children in the Children's Gift Growth Fund, 1986 (CGGF 86), as per the said scheme as stated in Ext. A1 brochure on the child on attaining 21 years of age, he would be eligible for a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- with recurring bonus and dividend. The grievance was that while he was regularly making the contribution, he sent a cheque towards the contribution alongwith Ext. A2 letter but the cheque was returned with a letter intimating that the said scheme has been stopped. The complainant alleged that the said act of the opposite party would amount to deficiency of service, consequently he wanted a direction to the opposite party to continue the scheme and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The allegation of the complainants in O. P.533/98 also is similar, the first complainant joined on behalf of his daughter in the aforesaid scheme. He was making contributions regularly. But when she sent an application dated 20.3.1998 alongwith the amount for purchase of 260 units, the same was rejected. The complainant could not continue the remittance and the aforesaid act of the opposite party, therefore, would constitute deficiency in service. The opposite party in O. P. No.222/98 as well as O. P. No.533/98 filed versions. The nature of the defence taken in both the versions is the same. The contention raised by the opposite parties in the respective version is that the scheme started as per Sec.21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 and as per Clause 33 of the scheme the opposite parties are entitled to terminate the scheme at any time by giving a notice of not less than two weeks in one of leading English dailies, and consistent with the same they had published the suspension of the scheme by public notice dated 20th October, 1997. Therefore, they sought to maintain that the action of the opposite parties in this regard since is consistent with the requirement of the scheme and Sec.21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 the said action of the opposite party cannot constitute deficiency in service. It was also maintained merely because the future contribution was stopped with effect from the date of notification benefit accruing on the remitted units would accrue. The benefits are noted in Clauses A and B of the Children Gift Growth Fund and they maintained that being the guarantee benefit no injury could be caused to the child on whose behalf the contributions were made. Therefore, it was maintained by them that the complaint is not maintainable.

(2.) In O. P. No.222/98 the complainant had produced Exts. A1 to A3 and gave evidence as P. W.1. In the said O. P. the District Forum made a direction to refund the amount collected under Ext. A3 series alongwith 15% interest with quarterly rest from the date of remittance till realisation, Rs.2,000/- was awarded as compensation, and cost of Rs.500/- was also awarded.

(3.) In O. P.553/98 the complainant had produced Exts. P1 to P5. In that case the District Forum made a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and to pay Rs.500/- towards costs. In Appeal 193/99 the complainant filed I. A.383/99 for admitting the photo-copy of the Financial Express dated 20th October, 1997 and also I. A.623/97 for admitting the photo-copy of the Gazette of India dated 19th April, 1986. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the copy of the newspaper was not produced before the District Forum and, therefore, the same cannot be admitted in the appeal stage. As regards the Gazette Notification is concerned, for admitting the same also the learned Counsel has objection. The same is a public document, and can be admitted without further proof. We consider that the objection in that regards cannot be sustained. As to the newspaper sought to be admitted by I. A.383/99, we consider that the same being a relevant material for resolving the dispute in this matter the same too can be admitted and hence they are admitted in this appeal as additional documents.