Uti Infrastructure Technology And Services Ltd vs M S Vijaya Prasad

LATE Shri M.B.G. Shastry purchased 36630.037 units of US 64, vide certificate No.0000799, 14652.015 units vide certificate No.0000803 and 36630.037 units vide certificate No.0000800. The first purchase was made by him in joint names of himself and his son M.S. Vijaya Prasad. The second purchase was made by him in the joint names of himself and his daughter N. Vijaya Sree, whereas the third purchase was made by him in his sole name with M. Meher Mansion as the nominee. US 64 Scheme was terminated by UTI on 30 -06 -2001. In August, 2001, UTI announced a special re -purchase package for the small investors under the said Scheme, whereby investors were given an option to offer the units for re -purchase at the rate of Rs.10/ - per unit in August 2001 which increased to Rs.12/ - per unit in May, 2003. Later the eligibility for re -purchase was raised to 5000 units with effect from 01 -01 -2002. Shri M.B.G. Shastry died on 01 -11 -2001 and vide letter dated 17 -10 -2002 the complainant surrendered the old certificates and requested the UTI to issue new certificates in lieu of the said old certificates. 36630.037 units each were transferred in the name of M.S. Vijaya Prasad and Meher Prakash (respondent No.3) whereas 14652.0152 units were transferred in the name of Ms. N. Vijaya Sree (respondent No.2).

VIDE letter dated 11 -03 -2003, it was decided that first 5000 units covered under category A would be re -purchased at the rate of Rs.12/ - per unit and the balance units falling under Category B would be re -purchased at the rate of Rs.10/ - per unit. The unit holders were also given an option to invest the aforesaid amount in tax free bonds which were to carry interest at the rate of 6.75%. The petitioner UTI sent cheques representing re -purchase value of the units at the rate of Rs.10/ - per unit to respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 in respect of units which had been transferred in their respective names. A cheque of Rs.1,46,520.15/ - was sent to respondent, Meher Mansion whereas one cheque each of Rs.3,66,300.37/ - was sent to respondents Nos.1 and 3. The respondents, however, claimed that they were entitled to re -purchase of first 5000 units at the price of Rs.12/ - per unit and returned the cheques which they had received from the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner informed them that difference at the rate of Rs.2/ - per unit for the first 5000 units had been separately sent to them and the cheques received from the respondents were returned to them. Later those cheques were encashed by the respondents.

THE respondents filed a complaint being Complaint Case No.637 of 2004 before the District Forum I, Hyderabad claiming interest on account of delayed payment as well as Rs.10,000/ - each being difference in re -purchase value of first 5000 units. Vide order dated 28 -02 -2006 the District Forum directed the petitioner to pay interest to the complainants along with difference of Rs.10,000/ - each. During pendency of the first complaint itself the respondents filed another complaint being Complaint Case No.708 of 2005 seeking direction to the petitioner to issue 6.75% tax free bonds to them in respect of the units held by them. In the aforesaid complaint they also claimed that the payment received by them was in respect of some missing certificates and not in respect of the certificates in question i.e. certificates Nos.0000799, 0000803 and 0000800.

THE second complaint was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the payment made to the respondents was against those three certificates and not in respect of any missing certificates. However, vide order dated 13 -08 -2007 the District Forum directed the petitioner to give re -purchase facility to the complainant under Exhibit A30, A31 and A32.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30 -06 -2010 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

A perusal of the documents filed by the parties would show that late Shri M.B.G. Shastry had acquired units only vide certificates Nos.0000799, 0000803 and 0000800, out of which certificate No.0000799 was in the joint names of Mr. M.B.G. Shastry and the respondent M. Vijaya Prasad, certificate No.0000803 was in the joint name of M.B.G. Shastry and N. Vijaya Sree whereas certificate No.0000800 was in the sole name of Mr. M.B.G. Shastry, with Meher Mansion as his nominee. There is no evidence of his having purchased any unit in addition to the units allotted vide above three certificates. Under the re -purchase Scheme announced by UTI first 5000 units were to be purchased at the rate of Rs.12/ - per unit whereas the remaining units were to be purchased at the rate of Rs.10/ - per unit. It is an admitted case that the respondents/complainants have already received from UTI, cheques representing the purchase value of the units at the rate of Rs.10/ - per unit. After receipt of the aforesaid payment their grievance remained confined to difference of Rs.10,000/ - each on the ground that 5000 units from each of them should have been purchased at the rate of Rs.12/ - per unit and for interest on account of delayed payment of the re -purchase price. Admittedly, vide its order dated 28 -03 -2006 the District Forum has already directed the petitioner to pay the aforesaid deficient amount of Rs.10,000/ - each to the complainant along with interest at the rate of Rs.16% per annum on account of delayed payment of the re -purchase price. If the aforesaid order dated 28 -03 -2006 passed by District Forum, Hyderabad has not been complied with by the petitioner, the appropriate remedy for the respondents is to seek execution of the said order in accordance with law. However, the second complaint, seeking issue of tax free bonds in lieu of the units which UTI had already purchased on the request made by the respondents was not maintainable. As noted earlier there is no evidence of late Shri M.B.G. Shastry or the complainants/respondents having purchased units other than those comprised in certificates Nos.0000799, 0000800, 0000803. The documents filed by UTI clearly show that all the units issued vide above referred three certificates have already been re -purchased. Therefore, there can be no question of issuing any tax free bonds in lieu of the said units. It appears that the District Forum as well as the State Commission were unable to comprehend the true facts of the case and proceeded on the assumption that the complainants/respondents had also acquired units other than those which were comprised in certificates Nos.0000799, 0000803 and 0000800, which UTI had already re -purchased on being lodged with it. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The second complaint filed by the respondents being complaint No.708 of 2005 filed before the District Forum, Hyderabad is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner has already not complied with the order passed by the District Forum, Hyderabad on 28 -03 -2006 in Complaint Case No.637 of 2004 it shall be open to the respondents/complainants to seek execution of the said order in accordance with law. The revision petition stands disposed of.