UNIT TRUST OF INDIA vs RAKESH RASTOGI

THESE revision petitions are filed against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Since the facts involved in all the revision petitions are similar, we dispose them of with a common order.

TO dispose of the revision petitions, it is not necessary for us to dwell on the facts in great detail as the limited point to be decided by us is as to the rate of interest. Still, to dispose of these matters we discuss the facts in brief which are as under : The complainant in these matters have purchased units of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) and applied for re-purchase on maturity. The UTI sent cheques for the requisite amounts to the complainants by registered post. Though the complainants had informed the UTI their Bank Account Numbers, the account numbers were not printed on the cheques sent to the complainants. Those cheques never reached the hands of addressees and were encashed by somebody else. On account of this fact, the complainants had suffered loss including loss of interest etc. Hence, the complainants approached the District Forum for a direction to the UTI to pay the amounts with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. On notice being issued, the opposite party, UTI, filed its written version, wherein it had taken the stand that there was no deficiency in service on its part. It is also contended that the cheques were sent to the complainants by registered post at the correct address. The said registered covers were not received back undelivered and hence it was presumed that the letters were received by the complainants along with the cheques. The District Forum upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the evidence led by them found deficiency on the part of the UTI for the reason that the UTI had negligently sent the cheques to the complainants without mentioning on the cheques the account numbers of the complainants which cheques were ultimately encashed by somebody else. In view of the above discussion, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to the UTI to repay the requisite amounts with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of their maturity with costs.

FEELING dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the UTI went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission in its detailed order upheld the orders of the different District Fora with some minor modifications as to payment of compensation as awarded by different District Fora.

STILL not feeling satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the UTI has come in revision before us. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the written arguments filed by the Counsel for the U.T.I. Notices were issued to the Banks and Post Offices where the actual recipient of the registered cover was someone other than the addressee, had gone and opened accounts in the assumed name of the payees of the cheques and on hearing it transpired that in nearly all the cases the accounts were opened on one day and the entire amount of the cheques credited to that account was withdrawn soon thereafter leaving only a marginal balance. The Banks approached with the plea that they had opened the account which was duly introduced. However the fact remains that the persons who operated that account were not genuine payees and the Banks ought to have been more careful. The only relief that can be afforded to the UTI is that all the Banks and/or Post Offices as the case may be are directed to pay to the UTI whatever balance is available in such accounts and restrain them from entertaining by releasing any further sum to the said importer who opened the account under the assumed name. It is ordered accordingly. Further, we find that the rate of interest awarded is very much on the higher side and that is reduced to 12% p.a. Since the payees have had to undergo a lot of running around and have had to incur considerable expense it is appropriate that in each case the UTI pays costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the 1st respondent who is the complainant and the real payee. The UTI should, if it has not already released the amount in favour of the actual payees against their indemnity. The rest of the impugned order is sustained. The Revision Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.