UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. KELKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2001 passed by State Commission, U.P. in Appeal No. 2684/SC/2000 whereby the petitioner's appeal was partly allowed against the order dated 2.1.1998 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 582/1999.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are : The complainant/respondent No. 1 Kelki Devi along with her late husband Ram Raghubir Rastogi had purchased 2000 units of GMIS, 92 scheme launched by the petitioner. Unit Trust of India, in the year 1992. The petitioner issued a certificate No. M9324029669 in the joint name of Ram Raghubir Rastogi and Kelki Devi. On the maturity of the scheme the petitioner sent an A/c payee, non-negotiable and non-transferable cheque bearing MICR No. 6516 dated 1.2.1998 in the name of Shri Ram Raghubir for Rs. 20,800/- through respondent No. 3, the Post Master, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi vide registration No. 6472 dated 24.1.1998 at the address of Kelki Devi which was furnished by her at the time of purchase of units from the petitioners. Since the registered letter was not received back undelivered to the petitioner, it was presumed to have been delivered to Kelki Devi. Kelki Devi informed the petitioner vide letter dated 10.2.1998 about the non-receipt of the maturity amount of Rs. 20,800/-.

(3.) THE revision petitioner argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner as they have sent the cheque on the maturity of the scheme; that the said cheque was sent by registered post through the Post Office and was delivered to the address of respondent No. 1 and if undelivered it should have been returned to the petitioners which is not the case; that the respondent No. 2-Jain Cooperative Bank, New Delhi has collected and encashed; that the impugned order of the District Forum and the State Commission holding UTI responsible for payment has material irregularity; that the cheque was A/c payee, non-transferable and non-negotiable and encashment through the respondent No. 2 a Bank implies that a fraud has been committed with the connivance of respondent No. 2 and that it is a clear case of forgery and illegal encashment of the cheque and cheating on the part of the respondent No. 2, the Bank, that this matter involves investigation and criminal complaint; that criminal proceedings should be pursued and that this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act since fraud/cheating is involved.