MANSI GUPTA Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA (UTI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant has preferred this revision against impugned order dated 01.05.2015, passed by H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short as 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.417 of 2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are, that petitioner filed a complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short (as Act') against Respondent/Opposite Party, claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by respondent. It is stated that respondent had launched a scheme Raj Lakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992, (RUS-92) as an exclusive scheme for the benefit of women. Parents of petitioner purchased the units for maturity amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and 1,12,500/- on 30.12.1992 and 7.10.1993. The petitioner has claimed that she received a letter dated 30.9.2011, vide which respondent terminated the scheme and paid Rs.33,297.62p, instead of Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs.21,443.26p, instead of Rs.1,12,500/- as promised at the time of purchase of these units. The petitioner states that this being the part payment, respondent was requested to pay the remaining amount. However, respondent clarified vide its letter about the termination of the scheme on 20.8.2000. Therefore, petitioner has claimed that termination and closure of the scheme to be wrong and illegal being without any notice to the petitioner right from the year 2002 to 2012. Thus, petitioner has claimed that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner sought direction to the respondent to pay the balance amount along with interest and further damages for mental harassment including litigation expenses.

(3.) Respondent in its written statement has stated, that Unit Trust of India had been set up by the Govt. under Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, and scheme was started in year 1992, which was terminated w.e.f 30.9.2000 after the Act was repealed, w.e.f 29.10.2002. Thereafter, the trust has been bifurcated into two entities namely, The Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India and (ii) The UTI Trustee Company Private Limited. Further, termination of the scheme has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Commission. The factum of termination of the scheme had been duly notified and published in daily newspaper circulated throughout the country and investors were called upon to redeem the units as on 30.9.2000, vide letter dated 20.8.2000. It is further stated, that when petitioner applied for payment of redemption proceedings on 16.9.2011, the amount was released to the petitioner as was due, on the termination of the scheme. Hence, respondent denied any liability to pay the interest including such maturity value as pleaded and claimed by the petitioner. The respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.