K Madhavan Nair vs CHAIRMAN L I C OF INDIA

THE complainant in O.P. No. 61 /1997 is the appellant. THE complainant alleged before the District Forum, he joined the Dhanashree 1989 scheme published by the opposite party and subscribed Rs. 50,000/ - by which he has taken 500 units at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per unit. He was also issued with a certificate to the said effect. THE said scheme matured on 1.11.1996. THE complainant sent the certificate with redemption form for the said amount. He received only the face value of the units of Rs. 50,000/ - on 21.12.1996 though the complainant was entitled to interest for the period from 1.11.1996 to 21.12.1996 that was not paid. Dividend for the period from 1.4.1996 to 21.12.1996 was also not paid. THE opposite party filed their version in which the claim made by the complainant was denied. THEy maintained that dividend for the period 1989 -90, 13.5%, for the period 90 -91 dividend was given at the rate of 16% for 91 -92 again it was 16%, 92 -94 at 21%, 94 - 95 it was 16% and for 95 -96 at 12%. THE scheme was closed on 31.10.1996 was so declared. Books for Dhanashree 1989 remained closed for all transactions from 1.8.1996 to 31.10.1996. THE complainant redeemed only after the book closure. As such he is not entitled to any interest.

THE District Forum after going into question dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same the complainant has now come up in appeal. The complainant who appeared in person contended that, he was not paid any dividend for the period from 1.4.1996 to 1.11.1996, and also that though he had closed the fund on its maturity on 1.11.1996 he was given cheque for amount only on 21.12.1996. Therefore, he made a claim for the interest at 15% on the amount for the period from 1.11.1996 to 21.12.1996. It was urged by the complainant that, as per the salient features of Dhanashree, he ought to have been given dividend as the scheme became matured on 1.11.1996. It is also maintained by him that, there is no reason why interest should not be charged on the amount of Rs. 50,000/ - for the period from 1.11.1996 to 21.12.1996.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand sought to support the conclusion reached by the District Forum. He maintained, no dividend was declared for the period 21.11.1996 to 21.12.1996, therefore the complainant is not entitled to dividend for the said period. It was also urged by the learned Counsel that, even as per Ext. B2 the dividend need be declared only at the end of each accounting year since the complainant closed the account before the accounting year, on that ground also he is not entitled to the dividend. As regards the liability to pay interest of 50,000/ - for the period from 1.11.1996 to 21.12.1996, it is submitted that, the application reached the opposite party -appellant only on 4.11.1996, and with due regard to the administrative burden, it was not possible immediately to disburse the amount and in that context the period taken till 21.12.1996 cannot be treated as unreasonable and, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay interest.

AS regards the liability to pay interest on the Rs. 50,000/ - though it is alleged in the version that there are several applicants in the aforesaid scheme and their certificates having been reached the office, they had to be properly scrutinised and it took time, there is no material to substantiate the same. In its absence, it has to be presumed, the amount belonging to the complainant was with the opposite party, and normally it could have been used by the opposite party, therefore, it should carry interest at 12% till the time when the amount was given to him. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to interest at 12% on the said Rs. 50,000/ - for the period from 4.11.1996 to 21.12.1996. As regards the claim for the dividend, the impugned order itself states as to Clause (2) of Ext. B2, which concerns the salient features of Dhanashree 1989, and therein it is stated there would be dividend not less than 12% per annum till each accounting year on the face value of the unit. Admittedly, the claim was before the accounting year. That provision could show that since the matter was closed and the claim was made before the accounting year, by the force and Clause (2) in Ext. B2 it is not possible to hold that, the complainant is entitled to dividend for the disputed period. In view of the said discussion, the appeal succeeds in part, and is allowed in part, the appellant shall be entitled to interest at 12% on the aforesaid Rs. 50,000/ - from 411.1996 to 21.12.1996. However, there will be no order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.