Uti Asset Management Co Ltd vs Avi Minor

THE complainant in Revision Petition No.834 of 2009 purchased 500 units of Raj Laxmi Scheme and the complainant in Revision Petition No.835 of 2009 purchased 1000 units of Raj Laxmi Scheme from the petitioner. The said Scheme, according to the complainants, carried special incentive and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Scheme was to mature on 14 -12 -2012. However, the petitioner closed the aforesaid Scheme prematurely on 30 -09 -2000. But, the redemption amount was not paid to the complainants. Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate complaints.

THE District Forum directed the petitioner to make the following payments to the complainant in Revision Petition No.834 of 2009: (i) to pay Rs.35,799/ - with interest @ 16.16% per annum,

(ii) to pay Rs.500/ - as compensation for harassment and mental agony,

(iii) to pay Rs.500/ - as costs of proceedings and

(iv) to pay special incentive of Rs.2,500/ -.

The following payments were ordered by the District Forum in Revision Petition No.835 of 2009: (i) to pay Rs.76,597/ - with interest @16.16% per annum w.e.f. 30 -09 -2000 till its payment,

(ii) to pay special incentive of Rs.5,000/ -,

(iii) to pay Rs.500/ - as compensation for harassment and mental agony and

(iv) to pay Rs.500/ - as costs of proceedings.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The appeals having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10 -09 -2008, the petitioner is before us by way of these two separate revision petitions. Raj Laxmi Scheme came to be prematurely terminated by UTI on 30 -09 -2000. The aforesaid termination was challenged before several high courts and was held to be illegal. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the orders of the High Court were dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, thereby upholding the validity of the premature termination of the said Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the unit holders to surrender the unit certificates to the petitioner and only on receipt of the said certificates the redemption value could have been paid to the complainants. He further submits that had the complainants submitted the said certificates in time, there would have been no delay on the part of the UTI in paying the redemption amount to them. According to the learned counsel the entire redemption amount was later paid to the complainant, though without interest, on the direction of the District Forum.

IN view of the petitioner having already paid the redemption amount to the complainant the only issue which remains to be considered in these matters is as to whether any interest should be paid to the complainants or not. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the complainants were negligent in the matter they having not sent the unit certificates to the petitioner company, they are not entitled to any interest. He relies upon the decision of this Commission in Nitika Sharma Vs. Units Trust of India and Ors., R.P. No.3956 of 2011, decided on 03 -04 -2012 and in Vijay Shakti and Anr. Vs. Unit Trust of India and Ors., R.P. No.2828 of 2007 decided on 22 -11 -2011.

THE learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is not as if the complainants did not at all submit the unit certificates to the petitioner. The said certificates were submitted on 24 -10 -2000 whereas the last date stipulated by the petitioner for submission was 30 -09 -2000. In our view on receipt of the certificates from the complainants, the UTI should immediately have paid the redemption amount, instead of withholding the payment till a direction in this regard was given by the District Forum. Non -payment of the redemption amount even on receipt of unit certificates on 24 -10 -2000 was clearly an act of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the petitioner company. Moreover, the petitioner company having utilized the money which rightfully belonged to the complainant on termination of the Scheme, cannot be allowed to gain an unjust enrichment at the cost of the complainant. We, accordingly, modify the order passed by the fora below, by directing the petitioner company to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the complainant on the redemption amount already paid to them, with effect from 24 -10 -2000, till the date the principal amount was paid to them. The interest in terms of this order shall be calculated and paid to the complainants within four weeks from today. The revision petitions stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.