Unit Trust of India vs RAMESH CHANDRA SAXENA

SHRI Ramesh Chandra Saxena, complainant in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh vide Complaint Case No. 112 of 1998 averred that he had an investment of Rs. 12,000/- under MISC 9011 Scheme, Cumulative growth on 15.1.1991 which was to mature after seven years on 1.1.1998. After the date of maturity, he contacted M/s. Unit Trust of India, Branch at Chandigarh seeking their assistance in obtaining maturity payment. The Registrar of M/s. Unit Trust of India in reply averred that Cheque No. M-142882-885 for the total sum of Rs. 30,240/- was sent to him on 27.12.1997 by an official Ms. Anupam of the branch. This amount, the complainant did not receive and failed to get it despite his efforts. He, therefore, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, U.T., Chandigarh and prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay him an amount of Rs. 30,240/- the maturity value along with interest @ 24% per annum, and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental harassment. The District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh found that opposite parties - M/s. Unit Trust of India, New Delhi and Chandigarh were guilty of deficiency in service. The District Forum found merit in the case and directed the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 30,350/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.1.1998 till payment and costs of Rs. 550/-. Aggrieved against the judgment of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, the respondent now appellant has attempted Appeal No. 116 of 2000 dated 22.6.2000.

THE respondent/complainant made an investment of Rs. 12,000/- by purchasing 1200 units floated by the appellant Corporation-U.T.I. under MISG 90(11) Scheme. THE scheme matured on 1.1.1998. THE respondent made all efforts and wrote number of letters to the appellant after maturity date but the maturity proceeds did not reach him. THE appellants in their written statement filed jointly repudiated the claim of the respondent besides raising preliminary objection that the case has been contested merely on the ground that the maturity value of the certificate by way of two cheques, one of Rs. 25,000/- and other of Rs. 5,200/- were dispatched to the respondent at Varanasi address. It has also been averred that the said cheques were got encashed by some person and case F.I.R. No. 1046/98 stood registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police. Though the culprits had been arrested, the case against him was pending in the Patiala House, New Delhi. In view of this, the appellant averred that the complaint was not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service on their part. THE appellants have further averred that the fault lies with the Postal Authorities and the Bank and they have not been impleaded in the case. The respondent/complainant in the rejoinder specified that he had not received the maturity cheques in spite of the fact that he had written to the appellants way back in 1997 giving his correct Chandigarh address as also account number held by him in Punjab National Bank, Sector 19, Chandigarh. Had the appellant written that account number on the face of the cheques, the same could not have been encashed. The respondent who argued his case in person submitted that the appellant-U.T.I. did not send the cheques at the correct Chandigarh address of respondent which was communicated to them and was being maintained in the records. The respondent never resided at Varanasi but still the cheques were sent by the appellant to the respondent at the address of Varanasi. Not only this, these cheques did not reach Varanasi and were intercepted at Delhi and were got encashed. The respondent further contended that he had been contacting the appellant-U.T.I. about the payment and the U.T.I, had been telling him to contact the banker about the payment. Since the respondent was concerned with the appellant-U.T.I., hence he had been contacting the U.T.I. about the payment and there was no need for the (?).

The District Forum-II heard the case on 25.1.2000 and passed the following orders : "During the arguments, it has transpired that the complainant resides at Chandigarh but the payment warrants were sent to him at Varanasi address. The complainant says that he did live at Varanasi for one year during the period his son was posted there, but he says that he had never intimated the opposite party about the change of that address. For the decision of the controversy, we direct the opposite party to place before the Forum the original/copy of the letter received by the opposite party intimating it about the change of address in respect of the present scheme which is in dispute in the case in hand. Let that be done on 25.2.2000."

IN the subsequent hearing Shri K.S. Lal, Agent of the appellant informed that the requisite record was not available being old and he could not produce in the Forum. The District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh has verified the original certificate which was issued in the name of the respondent/complainant at his Calcutta address where he was residing since 1990. The Forum also confirmed that the respondent wrote a letter to the appellants on 17.10.1997 giving the change of address of Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, where he is presently residing and his Saving Bank Account number maintained in Punjab National Bank, Sector - 19, Chandigarh has also been verified. IN spite of these letters, the appellant sent the cheques for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,240/- to the complainant to Varanasi. It is pertinent to note that the cheques are dated 1.1.1998. This proves that the cheques have been issued later than the letters sent by the respondent/complainant. The respondent has informed us that under the orders of the Court of Magistrate at Delhi, the payment of the principal amount has been made to him and he has thus received the payment of the principal amount. The respondent contends that he has claimed interest on the principal amount for the period from 1.1.1998 up to 20.6.2000 when the payment of the principal amount was made to him by the Delhi Court which was dealing with the matter regarding the cheques being intercepted and unauthorisedly encashed in a case. Our attention has been drawn to the citation Unit Trust of India & Anr. v. Mohd. Ausaf& Ors., reported in II (2000) CLT 335 (UP), wherein it has been held that : "the liability of the appellant does not cease merely by saying that it posted the cheques by registered post-The appellant has failed to prove that cheque was delivered to the complainant and the liability of the appellant does not cease."

AFTER hearing Mr. K.L. Lal, Officer of the appellant and Shri Ramesh Chander Saxena, respondent in person and going through the affidavits placed on record of the complaint case and also from the perusal of the judgment of the District Forum we find that the complaint was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to pay the maturity value of Rs. 30,240/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.1.1998 till payment. In view of the fact that the principal amount has been paid to the respondent under the orders of the Delhi Court referred to above on 20.6.2000, the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellant was now to pay interest on the maturity value of Rs. 30,240/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.1.1998 to 20.6.2000 and shall also pay a cost of Rs. 550/- as ordered by the District Forum. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.