BRANCH MANAGER, UNIT TRUST OF INDIA vs TAPAS RANU

BOTH sides are present. The dispute between the parties revolves round the question of non-receipt of two cheques each for the sum of Rs. 7,665/- totalling Rs. 15,330/- by the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the parties that the cheques said to have been sent by the U.T.I, to the address of the complainant did not reach the complainant so far. It is also admitted that the cheques have been delivered to a fake addressee within P.O. Hazipur, Bihar and they were eventually encashed. The complainant approached the Forum at Murshidabad claiming payment of the aforesaid sum from the U.T.I. The Forum directed payment of the aforesaid sum within a period of two months from the date of judgment. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/UTI submits that the Forum was wrong in directing payment of the money by the U.T.I. On the ground that the U.T.I, was not a party to the fraud nor does the dispute come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant appears in person and submits that he cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his own. It is the responsibility of the U.T.I, to pay him the money which he had invested with the U.T.I. As noticed earlier, the cheques purported to have been sent by the U.T.I, did not reach the hand of the complainant. The complainant is rightfully entitled to get the money but because of some fraudulent activities on the part of some unscrupulous persons it was delivered to an addressee within Post Office Hazipur, Bihar. It would be quite unjustified to contend that the complainant would take resort to remedy elsewhere to recover the money. It is not in any way concerned with the fraudulent activities of some unscrupulous persons. There is no sufficient materials to hold that the covering letter through which the cheques were said to have been forwarded to the complainant was properly and correctly addressed and that too sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. The learned Lawyer for the appellant has drawn to our attention to Annexure-1 to contend that it was sent to the address of the complainant but the fact remains that it does not show clearly that the cover was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due.

IN view of these circumstances, we feel that it is the responsibility of the U.T.I, to see that the money invested by the poor investor is returned to him. Surely, this is a dispute involving deficiency in service and as such the case in hand is well covered within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. IN that view of the matter we find and hold that the case has been correctly decided by the Forum and no interference with the order is sought for. The appeal fails and dismissed on contest without any cost. Appeal dismissed. ______________