Jai Shree Gupta vs Unit Trust of India

THIS is a case of non delivery of 2000 units of Mastergain-1992. The units though despatched by the opposite party through registered post never reached the complainant. District Forum-I directed the opposite party-U.T.I. to issue the original certificates or duplicates in lieu thereof. It also asked the complainant not to dispose of the units for a year. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant-appellant filed an appeal in this Commission on 12.4.96.

THE ground taken in appeal is that the non-receipt of the certificates by the appellant was due to negligence of respondents and thereby the appellant suffered great losses. District Forum-I. ought to have granted compensation therefor. Further, the restriction on disposal of certificates for a year was unwarranted. Appellant has prayed for setting aside the said restriction on disposal of units and grant of Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for the loss suffered. Award of cost has also been prayed. Facts in the case are that the respondent UTI upon allotment of 2000 units to the appellant despatched the certificates to her on 13.4.93 by registered post. After some time in October, 1993, respondents received request for transfer of the units in question by 4 individuals. The requests were accompanied by unit certificates as well as transfer deeds. The respondent however observed that signature of the transferor did not tally with that in their record. Therefore, the requested transfers were not made. Respondent in October 1993 received from the appellant Indemnity bond etc. and thereafter followed the statutory and procedural formalities. The loss of unit certificates had also to be published in Newspapers. The facts were duly placed before the District Forum. Upon appraisal District Forum-I did not give finding of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-respondents. It directed unit-certificates to be issued to the complainant-appellant. It further provided a period of one year for buyers of certificates to establish their claims. During this period the complainant-opposite party was not to dispose of the units.

We have gone through the records of the case and have also heard the authorised representative of the respondents. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. This is a case in which non-delivery of certificates was caused due to discrepancy in postal services. The opposite party respondents presented to the District Forum proof of having duly despatched through Regd. post the certificates to the complainant. Loss of certificates was caused in transit. Claims were received by the respondent for the transference of the disputed certificates. The respondents took care not to accept the requests on forged signatures of the complainant. Thereafter, several formalities and statutory requirements had to be gone into including publication of loss of certificates in Newspapers. Our attention has not been drawn to any acts of omissions or commission on the part of respondent establishing deficiency in service. With regard to the direction of District Forum-I that the appellant shall not transfer the units for a period of one year, we entertain serious doubts whether such a direction could be given in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the peculiar facts of the case, however, we need not set aside the direction in view of the fact that the period prescribed by the District Forum has already expired and the direction is rendered in fructuous. With these observations we dispose of the appeal on the short ground that no case of deficiency in service has been made out. A copy of this order be communicated to both the sides as well as District Forum-I. Appeal disposed of.