UNIT TRUST OF INDIA vs KELKI DEVI

THE present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2001 passed by State Commission, U.P. in Appeal No. 2684/SC/2000 whereby the petitioner''s appeal was partly allowed against the order dated 2.1.1998 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 582/1999.

BRIEF facts of the case are : The complainant/respondent No. 1 Kelki Devi along with her late husband Ram Raghubir Rastogi had purchased 2000 units of GMIS, 92 scheme launched by the petitioner. Unit Trust of India, in the year 1992. The petitioner issued a certificate No. M9324029669 in the joint name of Ram Raghubir Rastogi and Kelki Devi. On the maturity of the scheme the petitioner sent an A/c payee, non-negotiable and non-transferable cheque bearing MICR No. 6516 dated 1.2.1998 in the name of Shri Ram Raghubir for Rs. 20,800/- through respondent No. 3, the Post Master, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi vide registration No. 6472 dated 24.1.1998 at the address of Kelki Devi which was furnished by her at the time of purchase of units from the petitioners. Since the registered letter was not received back undelivered to the petitioner, it was presumed to have been delivered to Kelki Devi. Kelki Devi informed the petitioner vide letter dated 10.2.1998 about the non-receipt of the maturity amount of Rs. 20,800/-. The petitioners reconciled their record and informed her vide letter dated 25.5.1998 that the maturity cheque was sent by Regd. Post through the respondent No. 3, the Post Office on 24.1.1998 at the address given by her and that the said cheque has been encashed through Jain Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No. 2. The petitioner lodged the FIR with the Police Station, Connaught Place vide FIR No. 1046/1998 about the fraud committed by the respondent-Jain Cooperative Bank and the Post Master. Kelki Devi had filed the complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the party directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 20,800/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from 1.2.1998 with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- till the date of actual payment to the complainant/respondent No. 1 within three months otherwise interest of rate of 24% will be charged on the whole amount. Petitioners filed an appeal in the State Commission which partly allowed their appeal and deleted the compensation but otherwise confirmed rest of the order of the District Forum.

THE revision petitioner argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner as they have sent the cheque on the maturity of the scheme; that the said cheque was sent by registered post through the Post Office and was delivered to the address of respondent No. 1 and if undelivered it should have been returned to the petitioners which is not the case; that the respondent No. 2-Jain Cooperative Bank, New Delhi has collected and encashed; that the impugned order of the District Forum and the State Commission holding UTI responsible for payment has material irregularity; that the cheque was A/c payee, non-transferable and non-negotiable and encashment through the respondent No. 2 a Bank implies that a fraud has been committed with the connivance of respondent No. 2 and that it is a clear case of forgery and illegal encashment of the cheque and cheating on the part of the respondent No. 2, the Bank, that this matter involves investigation and criminal complaint; that criminal proceedings should be pursued and that this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act since fraud/cheating is involved.

IT is also argued that awarding of principal amount with interest at 18% and further imposing the penalty on the petitioner by ordering that if the payment is not made within three months the interest will be charged @ 24% is to be set aside. The revision petitioner further argued that they are the statutory corporation whose aim is to mobilise the savings of the common people/investors and are custodian of public funds and that the erring/guilty Bank/Post Office will be allowed to go scot-free for their negligence/connivance in such fraudulent encashment and that UTI cannot be made liable to pay for the wrong committed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We heard both the parties and after perusing all the records and the orders passed by lower Fora we find the arguments of the petitioner that they have liability to pay is unacceptable by us. We find that the respondent/original complainant cannot be made to suffer on the lapses on the part of erring opposite parties - Unit Trust of India or Post Office or Bank whether the cheques are lost during transit or they are encashed fraudulently by the Bank in collusion with some person, it is not the concern of the consumer to go after all these agencies to get their rightful money. Respondent/complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount with interest. Uti can retrieve whatever balance from the bank which is an internal settlement between them. Consumer would not suffer for the wrong encashment/fraud committed in the Bank. In view of the above discussion and our earlier decision in Revision Petition No. 1224 of 2002 and similar view had been taken by this Commission''s order dated 6.2.2003 when interest was awarded at 12% and Rs. 1,000/- as cost in similar cases. In view of the foregoing discussion we allow the revision petition to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced to 12% p.a. but rest of the order of the State Commission is confirmed with the above modification and Rs. 1,000/- cost be paid to the respondent No. 1.

REVISION Petition is allowed with the above modification.