UNIT TRUST OF INDIA INVESTOR SERVICES LTD. vs BRAJANANDA DAS

THIS is an appeal by the U.T.I. against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1999 passed by the District Forum, Khurda in Complaint Case No. 296/1997.

THE brief facts of the case stated are that the complainant had invested Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party by way of M.I.P. on 6.6.1995. On maturity of the amount, the O.P. withheld their money without any valid reason. THE non-payment of the maturity value, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence the opposite party is liable to refund the deposited amount with interest. The opposite parties filed their written version through their authorised representative Mr. Mahatab who argued the case strenuously that the delay for issuing the cheque could not be considered as a deficiency as U.T.I. had to wait for at least one year for knowing the position from different banks - as such the U.T.I. was unable to issue dividend warrant for the period from 1.12.1996 to 1.12.1997. Further Mr. Mahatab argued that the Forum below has acted in excess of its jurisdiction illegally as Consumer Forum has no authority to intervene into the policy matter of U.T.I. and have failed to understand the meaning of re-purchase and thereby failed to adjudicate the case properly, and for that the judgment so passed by the learned District Forum is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

The District Forum after considering the case of the parties decreed the claim of the complainant and directed opposite party Nos. 1 and 4 to pay the entire dividend amount from December, 1996 to December, 1997 with interest @ 10% along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/-.

WE have considered the case of the parties and submission of the complainant as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the entire record. A mere plea of the opposite party explaining inordinate deley for issue of cheque is not accepted by us. The facts set up by the complainant are supported by his affidavits that he has deposited the amount by way of M.I.P. with the opposite party and the opposite parties have not controverted the case set up by the complainant. Once the amount is deposited with U.T.I. the later cannot escape its liability in any manner. The non-refund of the maturity value of the M.I.P. amounts to deficiency in service and utter negligence on the part of the U.T.I. Thus we find that the pleas taken by the appellant is devoid of force and is rejected. The appeal filed by the appellant against the orders of the District Forum lacks substance and the same is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we confirm the order of the District Forum with little modification by directing the opposite party (U.T.I.) to refund the matured amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. the date it has fallen due and remained unpaid i.e. from December, 1996 to October, 1997. We do not accept the views of the Forum below regarding the compensation awarded. So after careful consideration, we have awarded interest as compensation @ 18% per annum according to the judgment M/s. A.S.A. v. United India, II (1993) CPJ 203 (NC). The U.T.I. is further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. This order is to be complied positively within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. Appeal disposed of. Appeal disposed of.