UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. D D SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Andhra Pradesh dt. 21. 4. 2006 in appeal No. 959 of 2005 Unit Trust of India has filed this revision petition.

(2.) IT is the say of the complainant that he made seven investments with the Unit Trust of India (OP) in MIP 1997 scheme on 11. 5. 97 according to which the OP has to refund Rs. 90,269/- against Rs. 45,000/- invested in each of the investment. Due to floods in August 2000 at Hyderabad all the records in the complainants house were lost which was informed to the UTI Investors Services Ltd. (OP 2) on 19. 2. 2003 and requested them to refund the maturity value but OP 2 refunded the amount only in six cases but not in the 7th case. The OP contended that the amount has already been paid on 28. 4. 97. Therefore, the complainant approached the District Forum which directed the Ops to pay Rs. 90,269/- towards the maturity value of the 7th investment along with Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The State Commission after hearing the parties concurred with the order of the District Forum dismissing the appeal filed by the Ops.

(3.) LD. Counsel for the revision petitioner drew our attention to page 52 of the paper book wherein the complainant had made an application on 11. 3. 97 for investment of Rs. 45,000/- under capital growth option vide the investment certificate No. M 9213016729 under GMIS 92 maturity and to refund the balance amount of Rs. 62,600/ -. He brought to our notice that UTI in fact refunded the whole amount of Rs. 1,07,600/- for which he attracted our attention to pages 59 and 63 of the paper book, wherein the UTI had refunded on 1. 4. 97 through cheques Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs, 25,000/- and Rs. 7,600/- making a total of Rs. 1,07,600/- as Rs. 45,000/- was not reinvested. There is no proof of having reinvested Rs. 45,000/- with them hence, they are not liable to pay any amount.