Bhagwan Dass vs Unit Trust of India

THE partly successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.

IN view of the commendable & fair stand taken on behalf of the Unit Trust of INdia by their authorised representative, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts. Equally, it may be noticed at the outset that we were somewhat sceptical about the dispute coming within the consumer jurisdiction herein. However, Mr. R.K. Ranga, the authorised rep resentative of the respondent expressly conceded that it was so and raised no objection what soever about the locus-standi of the appellant as a consumer. IN view of this stand, we deem it unnecessary to opine at all on the legal aspect. It suffices to mention that the appellant way back in June-July 1991 had applied for 700 Units of the U.T.I. Unit Scheme, 1964 (Clause 2). However, owing to the default of the respon dent''s bankers, the relevant certificate could not be issued till the 23rd of July, 1993 and was actualy by the appellant in October 1993. It would appear that after a passage of nearly two years, the price of the units had escalated and consequently only 550 units were allotted to the appellant. Aggrieved by the respondent''s negligence, the complaint was preferred seeking the award of interest as also substantial compensation, therefor.

Though, notice was issued to the respondents, they did not choose to put in appearance or even file a reply to the complaint and were consequently proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum in its somewhat summary order observed that since the certificates had now been issued, the dispute about allotment stood resolved, and limited the relief to the award of interest to the appellant on the deposited amount @ 18% per annum from 1992 onwards upto the date of the allotment, with the direction that the excess amount, if any after the allotment of 550 units be refunded.

MR. Suman Jain, the Learned Counsel for the appellant has highlighted the grave hardship that the appellant has suffered owing to the virtually admitted error on behalf of the Unit Trust of India. It was pointed out that the appellant missed the lucrative opportunity of the rights offer extended out by the Unit Trust in July 1992, when units at a concessional rate of Rs. 11/- and odd were offered against the existing or are market rate of Rs.14/-. Similarly in the following year in July 1993 a similar rights offer of Rs. 12.80 P. perunit as against the listed or market price of Rs. 16/- could not be availed. Further the admitted dividend at the rate of 25% to 26% was not received either. Apart from that the mental agony and the actual physical and financial expense of persuing the matter was also sought to be compensated. Mr. R.K. Ranga, authorised representative of the respondent U.T.I, in terms stated that the case of the appellant having been processed, the authorities have agreed to allot 700 units to the appellant as originally applied for and also to pay the computed dividend of Rs. 3570/- only. This being so all that remains to be further computed is the loss caused to the appellant by the missed opportunities of the rights offer as also for mental harassment and the financial expenses for persuing the matter. We are of the view that on a fair calculation a sum of Rs. 5000/- would meet the ends of justice herein.

IN the light of the above, we direct that the respondent-Unit Trust of INdia shall complete the allotment of 700 units to the appellant and further pay Rs. 8570/- in all being the admitted amount of dividend of Rs. 570/- plus the compensation amount of Rs. 5000/- only. The appellant is also entitled to his costs, which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. This appeal is consequently allowed and the relief granted is enhanced in the terms recorded above. The respondent shall comply with the order within two months from today, failing which compliance will be enforced by the District Forum, Hisar itself under Section 27of the Act. Appeal allowed with costs.