RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the Master Equity Plan Scheme, 1991, the complainant purchased 500 units of Rs.10/- (Rupees ten) each, total value Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ). On 25.12.1995 he has submited the form for repurchase of the units. When the amount of these units was not received by him, he wrote a letter to opposite party No.3, Unit Trust of India, 59/3, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Opposite party No.3 informed that the letter has been sent to opposite party No.2, Mafat Lal Consultancy Services Ltd. , New Delhi. On this the complainant wrote a letter to opposite party No.2 on 13.11.1996. The opposite party No.2 sent a reply that on 16.5.1996, it has sent a sum of Rs.13,725/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred twenty-five) through a registered letter. If the letter has not been received, the complainant should enquire from local Post Office. The complainant informed it to opposite party No.2 that he has not received this letter. He should be immediately paid the amount of cheque or draft. In the meantime the Post Office, Dehradun informed through letter dated 4.12.1997 that such a letter was received by it but it returned it to opposite party No.2 on 31.5.1996 because the letter was not claimed by anybody. Thereafter by letter dated 11.12.1997 the opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to submit the form for duplicate cheque. The complainant asked for interest on the amount of Rs.13,725/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred twenty-five) from 16.5.1996 to the actual date of payment because it is only due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties that the amount has not been paid to him. When the amount of interest was not paid, the complainant gave a notice and filed a complaint.

(3.) The opposite parties filed written statement and alleged that earlier the cheque was sent by registered post. On correspondence the complainant was asked to complete the formalities but the complainant did not complete the formalities, therefore, he is not entitled to any interest. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite parties.