Unit Trust of India vs GUDDIE MADANJIT

THE Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh decided Complaint Nos. 556 of 1998 and 1034 of 1998 instituted by Smt. Guddie Madanjit w/o Mr. B.S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, r/o H. No. 311, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh on 2.2.1999. THE District Forum-I ordered that a sum of Rs. 520/- shall be payable by UTI for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 in respect of the units which respondent lady had purchased and continued to be a valid holder. Besides this costs of Rs. 200/- have also been awarded in both the cases. Aggrieved against it, Appeal Nos. 53 of 1999 and 54 of 1999 have been attempted by the Unit Trust of India.

BRIEFLY the complainant is the holder of 200 units upto 31st August, 1996 of UTI Scheme, 1964. It has been further averred that the dividend of Rs. 520/- was paid to the complainant in 1995- 1996 but it has not been paid for 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. On the legal notice the respondents now appellants replied that the said certificate was lodged for repurchase/ encashment by the complainant with respondents on 31st August, 1996 alongwith two other unit certificates bearing Nos. 400970190283990 for 160 units and 40097019023989 for 40 units. After necessary processing the repurchase proceeds of the units were sent to the complainant vide cheque No. R497D004839 for Rs. 5,520/- to whom it was never delivered. The learned Counsel for the complainant has shown the original certificate No. 4911 1 322298 for 200 units of UTI in the District Forum- I as well as today before us. On examination it was found that there were neither the signatures of the holder nor of the witnesses at the space specified for this purpose or in fact any where for the repurchase/ encashment of these units. Hence the question of submitting this unit certificate to the respondents now appellant does not arise. The original unit certificate is with the complainant and complainant has alleged that she neither sold these certificates to anybody nor received the receipt of the sale proceeds of the units and nor even the dividend for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.

After hearing Mr. Manoj Sharma, officer of the appellant-Unit Trust of India and the learned Counsel for the respondent-unit holder we hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the unit holder. Consequently we uphold the judgment of the District Forum-I in the aforesaid two complaints and we further suggest that the appellant-Unit Trust of India may hold an internal departmental enquiry to investigate the matter as to how lapse on the par t of their office occurred and pin-point the responsibility for not paying the dividend for the years 1996-97 and 1997-1998 in time. Besides this costs Rs. 1,000/- in each appeal shall be payable by the appellants to the respondent. This disposes of two appeals. Appeal disposed of. _______________