BABULAL GODIKA vs Unit Trust of India

HEARD.

THE appellant complainant was the holder of 2000 units of respondents UGS Scheme. THE units were to be repurchased by the respondent trust as and when such units were surrendered to it by the unit holder. THE appellant surrendered his holding of 2000 units on 18.11.1993 although a cheque for the amount payable to the appellant by the trust in respect of the value of the surrendered units was prepared on 24.12.1993, but the cheque could be delivered by the respondent to the appellant not before 28.1.1994. Alleging deficiency in service in making payment of the repurchased value of the units, the appellant filed his complaint before the D.F. The respondent appears to have contested the complaint of the appellant mainly on the ground that on 16.11.1993 the respondent had taken policy decision regarding giving additional facility to the investors by formulating the repurchased pricing structure. It was submitted that due to such decision taken by the trust, the payment of the value of the units would not be timely made by the trust to the appellant. The D.F. accepted the version of the respondent and dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

At the hearing we were given to understand that the alleged policy decision to formulate the purchased pricing structure of the units was taken by the respondent trust after the receipt of the application of the appellant. No doubt the respondent might have taken such a decision and such a decision if beneficial to the consumer could have also been implemented in his favour. But the consumer, who had surrendered the units on 18.1.1993 was entitled to the payment of such price/value of the surrender units as was prevalent on that date. A subsequent policy decision could not have adversely effected the right and interest of the appellant in the value of the unit trust as was prevalent on 18.11.1993.

BE that as it may, a cheque was admittedly prepared for the value which was payable to the appellant in respect of repurchased price of the units surrendered by him. Such cheque was admittedly prepared in the name of the appellant on 24.12.1993. Why such cheque could not be sent/delivered to him before 24.1.1994/28.1.1994 has not been satisfactorily explained. The delayed delivery of the cheque by the concerned authorities to the appellant constitute deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to the interest for a period of one month. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal and the complaint of the appellant allowed. The respondent is directed to make payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs. 53,600/- to the appellant for a period of one month. The above payment including the cost Rs. 500/- shall be made to the appellant within a period of one month from today positively failing which both the amounts shall attract interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Appeal allowed.