UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. SUDHIR GANPATRAO CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 3.12.1993 of the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay upholding the order dated 25.6.1993 of the District Forum, Solapur awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with costs of Rs. 100/- payable to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally.

(2.) THE facts lie in very narrow compass and may be noticed. The Complainant was an investor under the Units Scheme-64 of the Unit Trust of India (Petitioner herein � for short called UTI). The Complainant was eligible to apply for another scheme announced by UTI called UGS-2000. The Opposite Party No. 2 at the relevant time was UTI's Chief Representative of Solapur District. The Complainant's case is that he has submitted 5 applications to UTI for purchase of 1000 units of Rs. 10/- each under UGS-2000 scheme and paid the application money of Rs. 10,000/-, by way of Cheque No. 15080 dated 23.10.90 for Rs. 8000/- drawn on Solapur Merchant Co-operative Bank, Solapur in favour of Shri S.G. Godse, Opposite Party No. 2 and also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in cash against receipt of Shri S.G. Godse. The Complainant further asserts that Opposite Party No. 2 paid the amount to UTI through his cheque No. 353706 dated 15.J11990 through Sangli Bank but UTI did not issue the units despite reminders and personal visits to Pune office. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties and prayed for a direction to issue necessary share certificates or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.

(3.) THE District Forum Solapur came to the conclusion that Shri Godse had accepted a cheque of Rs. 8,000/- and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the Complainant for UGS-2000 on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and accordingly issued the receipts to the Complainant but the Opposite Party No. 1 is delaying the matter and avoiding the responsibility in this case. It was found that Shri Godse acted as agent of Unit Trust of India and accepted cheque and cash for Unit Trust of India and did not provide the service to the Complainant as per agreement. The District Forum directed the Opposite Parties to pay, jointly and severally Rs. 10,000/-with costs Rs. 100/- to the Complainant. The appeal of the UTI was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd of December, 1993 of the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay.