Unit Trust of India vs S.GEETHA DEVI

APPEAL is directed against the order passed by the District Forum/Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P. No. 1108/93. The opposite party is the appellant.

THOUGH notice was issued to the respondent and it was received, neither the respondent nor her counsel appeared. Shortly stated, the allegations in the complaint are as follows : The opposite party introduced in 1987 a scheme called Parentic Gift Growth Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the PGGF in short) as per which an adult individual unit holder could authorise her beneficiary to receive the grown amount of her investment with interest after maturity. The certificate under PGGF was purchased as units and the face value of each unit was fixed as Rs. 100/-. The complainant''s father purchased 1000 units worth Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27.2.1988. The maturity period was 5 years. According to the complainant, the certificate matured on 28.2.1993 and the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/-. But to the utter disappointment of the complainant she was only offered Rs. 1,67,000/- which was received on 19.3.1993. She was informed by the opposite party that the scheme was terminated with effect from 1.1.1992. The said decision of termination was taken unilaterally by the opposite party without any notice whatsoever to the complainant which according to the complainant is arbitrary and illegal. It is on these allegations the complaint was filed.

The opposite party filed a version. It was averred that the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, and the purpose of the Trust was to mobilise fund and benefits into productive investment. The Trust is empowered under Section 21 of the Act to formulate the schemes for providing facilities for participation in the income, profit etc. and the Parentic Gift Growth Fund Scheme was one of the various schemes formulated under the said section and the provisions of scheme were notified in the official gazette. It was launched in 1987 and as per the provisions of the scheme it could be terminated by giving due notice to the investor. It was terminated on 1.1.1992 and the termination notice was served to the complainant and other investors. Further a reminder was also sent by letter dated 10.6.1992. It was also mentioned in the termination letter that the Unit Certificates should be discharged by the beneficiary and the applicant for encashment. The opposite party received the PGGF unit certificate for Rs. 1,000/- purchased by the complainant''s father for repurchase on 3.3.1993 and the opposite party forwarded two cheques for Rs. 1,67,257.58. The minimum period taken by the opposite party to settle a repurchase case is about 3-4 weeks and in the instant case the claim of the complainant was settled within 19.3.1993. As the opposite party has already issued termination letter and intimated the complainant and in view of the provisions of the scheme the complainant is not entitled to get more amount than what is offered by the opposite party.

THE District Forum Observed that though the scheme was terminated as early as 1.1.1992 the complainant offered the amount of Rs. 1,67,257.58 only on 19.3.1993 i.e. after the maturity period of the said scheme. THE District Forum took the view that there was considerable delay in making the payment and in that view passed an order directing the opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 12.5% from 1.1.1992 on which date the scheme was terminated till 19.3.1993 i.e. Rs. 25,458/-. THE District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 250/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

THE authorised representative of the appellant vehemently contended that the termination letter was sent to the complainant as early as the first week of January, 1992 and she was asked to submit the certificate for settling the claim. Finding that there was no response from the complainant another reminder was sent on 10.6.1992 to which also there was no response from the complainant and in the circumstances he submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any more amount than offered by the opposite party. He also stated that when a scheme is terminated the amount is deposited in the current account and not invested for the purpose of earning profit and, therefore, the opposite party does not take any advantage of retaining the money with them. However, he admitted that both the intimations were sent by ordinary post. But he pointed out that first ordinary letter was received as can be seen from para 3 of the complaint itself. We also see that letter is dated 10.6.1992. She has not given in the complaint the date on which she received the said letter but it can safely be inferred that she would have received the (sic.) it within a week from the date of the letter. However she did not send the discharge certificate before the maturity date i.e. 28.2.1993. The District Forum has not considered this aspect in the order passed by it. We feel since there is no evidence when the complainant received the first letter it would be only reasonable to award interest at the rate of 12% from 1.1.1992 to 10.6.1992 the date of the reminder which was admittedly received by her. We do not find any justification in awarding further interest in the circumstances of this case, especially in the light of what is submitted by the authorised representative that the amount in such cases is not deposited to earn profit but is deposited only in the current account. However we feel since the opposite party has not offered even to pay this amount the complainant is justified in approaching the District Forum. So we do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to the complainant and also cost of Rs. 250/-. In the result we direct the opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 12% on a 67,257,58 from 1.1.1992 to 10.6.1992 alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 250/-. The amount will be paid within a period of one month. Appeal partly allowed.