Unit Trust of India vs V.S.SUBRAMANIAM

THE 1st opposite party-Unit Trust of India against which an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE complainant purchased 3000 units from the 1st opposite party, the value of it being Rs. 30,000/-. It became matured on 30.6.1994. After the maturity the complainant made a demand for payment. It appears the 1st opposite party had sent 2 cheques, the total amounts being Rs. 34,800/- by registered post. THE registered post had not been delivered to the complainant. Instead it appears something happened and the posts had been delivered to the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party had encashed the cheque in the 4th opposite party Bank. THE complainant informed the 1st opposite party about the non-receipt of money. It was suggested to him that he could reinvest the matured amount so that he might not loose any interest. THE complainant accepted the suggestion, but then he was told that the re-investment can be done only if the cheque amount was not paid. But subsequently the cheque amount was realised by the 3rd opposite party from the 4th opposite party Bank and therefore according to the 1st opposite party no question of reinvestment arose. THErefore the complainant wanted payment of the matured amount from the 1st opposite party. But payment was not made. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed.

THE 2nd opposite party is the Senior Post Master, Control Division, T. Nagar Post Office, from where the cheques were despatched to the address of the complainant. All the 4 opposite parties contested the complaint filing written versions. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and therefore it passed an award directing the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 34,800/- being the maturity value of the units purchased by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings.

Now in the appeal it is contended by the appellant/1st opposite party that the order of the District Forum is against the facts and it is not sustainable in law. It is argued that the 1st opposite party had sent the matured amount by way of cheques under registered post and it appears some fraud had been committed by some persons during transit and therefore no question of deficiency in service would arise so far as the 1st opposite party is concerned. But we are unable to agree with this argument. When the units had matured the 1st opposite party is bound to pay the amount to the complainant. It is true that the 1st opposite party had sent 2 cheques for the matured amount through registered post. But the registered post had not reached the complainant, but instead it had been delivered to the 3rd opposite party and it also appears to be fact that the 3rd opposite party had realised the amount from the 4th opposite party. So far as the complainant is concerned it is the liability of the 1st opposite party to pay the matured amount. If due to some fraud committed by the 2nd opposite party or 3rd opposite party or even the 4th opposite party the 1st opposite party can proceed against those people but it cannot simply say that since they had sent the cheques by registered post they are not liable. Saying so amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Rightly therefore the District Forum has held that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay the matured amount claimed by the complainant. The District Forum has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony.

THUS we find no merit in the appeal.. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.