UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. SUDESH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On complaint instituted by Smt. Sudesh Rana, a resident of Chandigarh, the District Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh ordered on 19.2.1999 that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.20,550/- (@ Rs.13.70 per unit for 1500 units) together with interest @ 12% per annum w. e. f.1.8.1995 till realisation. Besides this complainant was also awarded a compensation of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant now respondent applied for 1500 Units of Mastergain, 1992 in response to a Capital Growth Scheme floated by Unit Trust of India, appellant No.1. She also deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in May, 1992 as price of these Units vide Cheque No.0990303. This amount was paid through appellant No.2 Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. , who is agent of Unit Trust of India. When she did not receive Unit Certificate for a long period, she wrote a letter to appellant No.2 on 6.3.1993. In response of this letter appellant No.2 admitted the allotment of 1500 Units to her and confirmed that the Units Certificates had been despatched, however these had been lost in the transit vide letter dated 28.5.1993, Annexure C-3. The appellant No.2 also requested the complainant to submit application for duplicate Unit Certificates by executing Indemnity Bond. The complainant alleged that all the formalities had been completed but she did not receive Unit Certificates even then.

(3.) After hearing the representative of the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent, it was brought out that the scheme of Mastergain, 1992 was started in May, 1992 and admittedly the lock-in period of re-purchase was of three years. The Units were allotted on 1.8.1992 and the respondent could not encash/re-purchase the Units earlier than 1.8.1995 even if she had received it in time. It has also been admitted by the appellants that the Certificates are in their possession. The conclusion is that the impugned order of the District Forum-I is affirmed and no interference is called for. The appeal is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- against the appellant No.2 for lackadaisical attitude towards the consumer and for causing continued harassment to her.