HARIBHAI L.PATEL vs Unit Trust of India

THIS appeal arises from order dated 7.6.1997 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 1202/94. Since the complaint was dismissed, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Act for short]. It was the complainant''s case that he held one certificate of 280 units, another certificate of 260 units and third certificate of 1270 units in the Unit 1964 Scheme of the opponent Unit Trust of India [UTI]. The complainant applied for reinvestment of the dividend under the reinvestment Plan but his application was granted for the first two certificates and it was not granted for the third certificate concerning 1270 units. He, therefore, moved the opponent as well as the opponent''s officers at Ahmedabad requesting to include the third certificate also under the Reinvestment Plan. His request proved futile. Instead, the opponent sent dividend for the year 1993 in respect of third certificate of 1270 units, the complainant deposited the dividend in his account but upon the oral communication between him and the local officer of the opponent UTI, he sent cheque for Rs. 3,312/- for availing of Reinvestment Plan. He prayed for allotment of units accordingly @ Rs. 12.80 against said dividend and also prayed for dividend for the year 1994 including new units and cost in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The opponent resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that the opponent did not accept the complainant''s request for Reinvestment Plan in respect of the third certificate of 1270 units and for that reason the opponent sent dividend of Rs. 3,312/- to the complainant. With regard to returning of the dividend amount by way of cheque it was asserted by opponent that the alleged cheque was not traceable by the opponent. The complainant already sold and transferred the units covered by third certificate on 10.6.1995 to Gujarat State Surgeon''s Association. The complainant was, therefore, no more unit holder and lost his locus standi to file the complaint or to continue it before the learned Forum. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent UTI. It was finally contended that by accepting the dividend the complainant waived his alleged right of reinvestment.

AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the third certificate covering 1270 units was not accepted by the opponent for Reinvestment Plan due to some technical reasons and dividend in respect of the said certificate for the year 1993 amounting to Rs. 3,312/- was sent to the complainant who accepted the same but tried to explain saying that he returned the dividend amount by cheque. The opponent denied having received the cheque and requested the complainant to produce bank certificate to show such payment by cheque. The complainant failed to establish such payment and, therefore, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove that he repaid the dividend for the year 1993 so as to avail of Reinvestment Plan. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that on the complainant''s facts about he having accepted the dividend and then having sent the cheque for the purpose of returning the dividend amount,the complainant made his own case so complicated that the same deserved to be dealt with by a Civil Court. We have heard the complainant who is present before this Commission. The complainant frankly conceded that the amount of dividend that he received for the year 1993 remained credited to his account inasmuch as the cheque for the return of the amount which he sent to the opponent UTI remained not encashed, may be on account of loss of cheque either in transit or at the place of the opponent UTI. However, his contention is that when he availed of the facility of Reinvestment Plan, there was no reason for the opponent UTI to refuse acceptance of his option. With regard to dividend for the year 1994 it is his submission that dividend also was encashed by him by crediting the dividend in his account. However, he wrote to opponent UTI that he would avail of Reinvestment Plan [RIP] also with regard to such dividend credited by him in his account. That happened during the pendency of the complaint before the learned Forum. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon 4th Clause of UTI Scheme, 1964 which reads as under : "Income can be reinvested in further units under the Re-investment Plan, 1966."

He also read before us the clause of Reinvestment Plan, 1966 appearing on the same page of the leaflet and same reads as under : "Under this Plan, a mandate can be given by an investor for re-investment of the income. If the applicant desires to join the Plan at the initial stage, he can indicate the same in the application form. The applicant may also join the Plan later by writing to concerned office of the Trust by quoting the Unit Certificate Number"

It is not in dispute that in 1995 the complainant had sold the units covered by the certificate in question. Therefore, the dispute which remains to be resolved is concerning the aforesaid two dividend warrants which the complainant wanted to reinvest in the Reinvestment Plan {RIP}. In this connection, the opponent Unit Trust of India contended before the learned Forum that on account of some technical reasons, the request for reinvestment of the dividend for the unit certificate in question was not accepted by the opponent UTI. However, neither from the impugned order nor from any of the submissions made on behalf of the opponent UTI before the learned Forum, the technical reason could be spelled out. As can be seen from the aforesaid clauses of the pamphlet circulated by the UTI, the option given to the unit holder was irrevocable by the UTI once the unit holders gave the option in writing. Therefore, the refusal on the part of the opponent UTI in not granting the request of the complainant for reinvestment of the dividend amount in Reinvestment Plan apparently amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opponent UTI. We are not in a position to find any discretion reserved in the opponent UTI for rejection or acceptance of the option exercised by an investor. Besides, the opponent UTI has not disclosed the reason why the option exercised by the complainant in respect of the third certificate was not accepted when the same was accepted for other two certificates of the complainant. To that extent the question which was pending before the learned Forum could not be said to be a complicated question of fact. Insofar as the complainant''s request for enabling him to return the dividend amount of 1993 and 1994 for directing the opponent UTI to issue units for the said amount under the RIP is concerned, the same cannot be entertained at this belated stage as, in our considered opinion, that would amount to allowing the complainant to play second innings.

UNDER the above circumstances and having gone through the reply given by the opponent UTI in this appeal, we are of the considered opinion that non-acceptance of the initial request for Reinvestment Plan for one of the three certificates as stated above clearly amounted to deficiency in service particularly when the opponent UTI did not set out the alleged technical reason for not accepting the request for exercise of option for Reinvestment Plan. However, since the dividend amount remained with the complainant, we propose to award token compensation in favour of the complainant against opponent UTI. ORDER Impugned order dated 7.6.1997 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 1202/94 is hereby set aside. The opponent Unit Trust of India is directed to pay to the complainant token compensation in the sum of Rs. 300/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this direction. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no further order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.