K.M. SINGH vs Unit Trust of India

THIS order will dispose of A-154 and A-127 of 1994, which arise out of the same judgment date 33-94 of District Forum-I (D.F.).

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant, K.M. Singh and his sister jointly purchased 2500 units of GIUS 87 for Rs. 25,000/- in Feb.''87. According to the scheme to OP was to return Rs. 52,000/- after the termination of the scheme. It was to terminate on 31-7-92. They had purchased another 700 units of the same scheme for Rs. 7,000/-. It is further pleaded that the complainant and his sister surrendered the unit certificates for 2500 units and 700 units to the OP duly discharged for payment, on 6-7-92. The OP, however, sent a cheque relating to 700 units within 10 days but they did not send the payment relating to 2500 units to them inspite of respected requests. On 8-8-92 he was informed that the signatures of the holders on the certificates did not tally. A letter dated 29-7-92 to that effect was sent to his sister, which was received by her on 11-8-92. However, when he went to the office of the OP oh 12-8-92 again, he was given a cheque of Rs. 52,000/- dated 1-8-92.

It is further averred that in view of the conduct of the OP the complainant and his sister have suffered a loss of atleast Rs. 48,000/- as they would have invested that amount in another scheme of the UTI, if they had received the cheque earlier and therefore, the OP be directed to pay that amount to them with interest amounting to Rs. 1250/- for the period from 1-8-92 to the date of filing the complaint.

THE complaint was contested by the OP. THEy inter-alia pleaded that the payment of GIUS certificate was due on 1-8-92 and the cheque was given on 12-8-92. THEre was thus a delay of 12 days only. This happened because there was objection that, the signatures of the unit holder on the certificates did not tally with their signatures in the records of the UTI. It is further pleaded that the scheme (US-64) in which the complainant allegedly wanted to invest the money had conculded on 31-7-92, whereas the amount of the GIUS certificates, became due for payment on 1-892 and therefore, the complainant could not invest that amount in the new scheme. The learned District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the UTI and therefore it awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as damages to the complainant. It further observed that the said amount would be recovered by the OP from the defaulting officials if so advised. Both the parties have come up in appeal against the order to the Commission; the appeal of the complainant has been numbered as A-152/94 and that of the OP as A-217/94.

IT is contended by the complainant that the UTI should have delivered to him the cheque of Rs. 52,000/- matured value of 2500 units before 1-8-92 and if that had been done he could purchase US 64 preferential offer units with that amount. According to him as he was unable to purchase the said units he suffered loss of Rs. 48,000/-. We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept the same. It is not disputed that the maturity amount became due to the complainant on 1.8.92 and the scheme relating to purchase of US 64 preferential offer closed on 31.7.91. Thus the complainant/appellant became entitled to received the cheque relating to 2500 units on 1.8.92. In view of the said circumstances, if the said cheque was not delivered to the complainant before 1.8.92, the OP could not be held guilty of negligence. The fact that he was delivered the cheque of the units of the value of 700 units prior to 31.8.92 is not enough to hold that the cheque regarding 2500 units is not enough to hold that the cheque regarding 2500 units should have also been given to him before 1.8.92. The plea of the OP that the signatures of the complainant on the unit certificates and those of his sister did not tally with the signatures on the record of UTI appears to have been taken in order to cover the delay of 12 days. The complainant has been compensated for that delay by the District Forum by awarding Rs. 2,000/- as damages and in our opinion he is not entitled to any further damages on this ground.

THE complainant has claimed Rs. 48,000/- as damages which are remote. THE fact that he was to purchase US 64 units was not within the knowledge of the OP. Moreover US 64 units scheme had terminated earlier. It is well-settled that a person cannot be allowed to claim remote damages. Further the complainant has not shown how he arrived at the figure of Rs. 48,000/- as damages suffered by him. THErefore, we reject his claim of this amount. Now we advert to the appeal No. A217/94 filed by the UTI. THE complainant has been awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- as damages for deficiency in service. THE complainant had to visit the office of the UTI many times. Still he was paid the amount after a period of 12 days. THE cheque of the amount of Rs. 52,000/- was prepared on 1-8-92. It is thus evident that inspite of preparation of the cheque on 1-8-92 it was not handed over to him till 12.8.92. In these circumstances one besides losing the interest on the amount feels mental agony and pain. In the circumstances we think that the amount or Rs. 2,000/- given on account of deficiency in service cannot be said to be excessive. Consequently we do not find any merit in this appeal too. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss both the appeals with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.