VIJAY SHAKTI Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Vijay Shakti (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 845/2005 wherein Unit Trust of India and another were Respondents.

(2.) According to the Petitioner complainant, she had purchased 2000 units under Respondent's Raj Lakshmi Units Scheme for Rs. 20,000 in the name of her granddaughter. The scheme was to mature on 29.12.2009 and the maturity amount assured was Rs. 2,60,000. In January, 2003 when Petitioner approached the Respondents about the status of the scheme it was confirmed that it would be paid on maturity. However, in March, 2003 she was informed that if she wanted to withdraw from the scheme, she would get Rs. 1,30,000 with interest and other benefits. Petitioner, therefore, decided to withdraw from the said Scheme on 20.3.2003 and wrote a letter of consent accordingly. However, Petitioner was shocked to receive only Rs.66,223 through 3 cheques from the Respondent. She, therefore, approached the Respondents in the matter who informed her that the Scheme had been terminated on 30.9.2000 and she had been paid the due amount. In view of the fact that the scheme was terminated without even informing the Petitioner, leave alone her consent, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of illegal trade practice as well as deficiency in service and requested that respondent be directed to return the balance amount of Rs.63,777 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 30.9.2000 till the date of realization, Rs.20,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000 as the litigation cost.

(3.) Respondents while confirming that the scheme was terminated w.e.f. 1.10.2000 refuted the Petitioner's contention that she would be given an assured amount of Rs. 1,30,000 as on March,2003. In fact, the scheme did not promise any particular percentage of return but indicated an implicit return varying between 16.16% and 16.75% on an annualized basis. The brochure for the Scheme also clearly stated that the investment in the Scheme was subject to market risks. Petitioner's contention that the Scheme was terminated without informing the unit holders is not correct because letters were addressed to all unit holders along with option forms before the date of redemption requesting them to exercise the option either for payment of redemption proceeds or for conversion of redemption proceeds to any other scheme, A notice to this effect was also issued in newspapers as well as in UTI Bulletins. In the instant case, the Petitioner did not furnish any option. However, Respondent was able to return the amount on the basis of earning as assured i.e., about 16.66% per annum upto 30.9.2000 when the Scheme had stopped earning any interest.