GANGA DHAR vs Unit Trust of India

THE virtually successful complainants appeal against the order of the District Forum, Hissar seeking an enhancement of the relief granted.

THE facts are not in serious dispute and merit notice with utmost brevity. THE Unit Trust of India had floated the Master-gain-1992 Scheme. THE two appellants had applied for 300 & 200 units respectively in the said scheme. THE primal grievance in the complaint was that they did not receive any intimation from the Unit Trust of India with regard to the applications and these should have been allotted to them by the 30th of September, 1992. On this somewhat tenous basis the claim was that subsequently there has been a rising trend of the units certificate of Mastergain upto Rs. 16/- only and the appellants were entitled to this differential betwixt the face value price of Rs. 10/- and also compensation for the alleged mental depression and harassment. On notice being issued the -Unit Trust of India and M/s. Datamatics somewhat briefly took the stand that applied for unit certificates have been duly despatched to the appellants on the 22nd of February, 1993 and must have been received by the appellants.

Before the District Forum it was conceded that the relevant unit certificates had been subsequently received by the appellants but nevertheless the learned Counsel for the appellants pressed primarily on the ground that the differential amount betwixt the existing price on the 30th of April, 1992 and subsequently should be given as compensation.

IT would appear that the Respondents did not choose to put in appearance and seriously context the matter and on the existing records the District Forum somewhat briefly took the view that there was delay beyond 30th of September, 1992 in the issuance of the unit certificates and consequently directed the payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from October, 1992 upto the date of receipt of the unit certificates. Apparently the appellants are not satisfied with the relief granted and as such the present appeal has been preferred seeking a further raise in the quantum thereof allowed by the order under appeal. Mr. M.S. Guglani somewhat persistently contended that on the basis of the fluctuations on the stock exchange with regard to the price of the units the appellants are entitled to a differential amount at the highest rate of Rs. 16/- therefor and also for the supposed mental harassment and desert. Reliance was sought to be placed on Sections 73 and 113 of the Indian Companies Act as also on II (1991) CPJ 19, Shri L.C. Chandgotiya & Others v. Northern Leasing and Industries Ltd. & Another and I (1993) CPJ 3 (NC), Ram Narayan Parameshwaraiyer & Another v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Others.

WE are afraid that there is no merit in the aforesaid submission, nor any adequate foundation for the further enhancement of the relief granted. What first meets the eye is the fact that the learned Counsel could not even pin-point how the date 30th of September, 1992 was sacrosant by which the appellants were entitled to both the allotment and the delivery of the certificates, nor was any adequate material placed on the record with regard to the alleged fluctuation of the unit price, as also the tall claim that the alleged highest price of Rs. 16/- be made basis of the award of compensation. It would appear that no meaningful evidence worth the name were at all led on behalf of the appellant to establish the precise quantum of the claim. Learned Counsel''s reliance on Sections 73 and 113 of the Companies Act is equally vain and untenable. Though we do not give any final opinion it appears a doubtful preposition whether the unit certificates under its scheme are shares stricto-sansu and not merely scrips of a mutual fund. No precedent or principle could be cited before us to establish that Sections 73 & 113 of the Companies Act are directly applicable to the said scrip or even if, it was so, what was the precise violation thereof. In the aforesaid view Mr. Guglani''s reliance on Shri L.C. Chandgotia & Others v. .Northern Leasing and Industries Ltd & Another (supra) is vain because that case pertains specifically to the shares of a Limited concern which had been negotiated for purchase at a settled premium. Plainly enough the said case is distinguishable. Equally one fails to see how Ram Narayan Parameshwaraiyer & Another v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. (supra) would in any way advance the case of the appellants. In fact it seems to boom-rang upon the stand with observation therein that if the complainant had purchased the debentures for resale, the transaction could be for a commercial purpose and therefore he would not even be a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

FOR the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellants with any costs because of their consumer status. Appeal dismissed. ______________