RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum whose complaint was dismissed on the ground that the case involves complex question of facts and law and question of fraud has crept in necessitating adducing detailed oral and documentary evidences, the Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the controversy. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissing in-limine on the same grounds. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took ULIP Policy for Rs. 40,000/- in August, 1987, which was to Mature on 2.7.1997. When the petitioner did not receive the amount on its maturity, several approaches were made to the respondent but to no avail till 24.6.1999 when the respondent informed the petitioner that on maturity, a cheque indeed was sent to the petitioner, but has been got encashed by someone from the Central Bank of India, Faridabad. Not getting the money and seeing the indifferent attitude of the respondents, the petitioner filed a complaint which was dismissed on the grounds that since it will involve complex question of facts of law involving detailed evidence, the Consumer Forum shall not be able to deal with the case, hence the Forum directed that the petitioner may approach a Civil Court for his relief. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as far as is concerned, he was entitled to get his money on maturity which admittedly he has not received. The cheque was sent by post. If somebody enroute has swindled it, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that. The case of the petitioner is simple and no complex question involved relegating it to knock at the door of the Civil Court. On the other hand it was asked by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there has been no deficiency of service on their part. They had sent the cheque to the petitioner. They had done their duty. If the cheque has been got encashed by someone else the respondent cannot be held accountable for that. The orders of both the lower Forums are correct and need to be upheld. He also took exception to the wording used in the Memo of Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in which the imputation is that fraudulent encashment of cheque was in connivance with the UTI. The learned Counsel for the petitioner immediately apologized for the use of the word and volunteered to withdraw those words.