RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA , Appeal No. 805 of 2003 vs Unit Trust of India

THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that in the Master Equity Plan Scheme, 1991, the complainant purchased 500 units of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten) each, total value Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). On 25.12.1995 he has submited the form for repurchase of the units. When the amount of these units was not received by him, he wrote a letter to opposite party No. 3, Unit Trust of India, 59/3, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Opposite party No. 3 informed that the letter has been sent to opposite party No. 2, Mafat Lal Consultancy Services Ltd., New Delhi. On this the complainant wrote a letter to opposite party No. 2 on 13.11.1996. THE opposite party No. 2 sent a reply that on 16.5.1996, it has sent a sum of Rs. 13,725/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred twenty-five) through a registered letter. If the letter has not been received, the complainant should enquire from local Post Office. THE complainant informed it to opposite party No. 2 that he has not received this letter. He should be immediately paid the amount of cheque or draft. In the meantime the Post Office, Dehradun informed through letter dated 4.12.1997 that such a letter was received by it but it returned it to opposite party No. 2 on 31.5.1996 because the letter was not claimed by anybody. THEreafter by letter dated 11.12.1997 the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to submit the form for duplicate cheque. THE complainant asked for interest on the amount of Rs. 13,725/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred twenty-five) from 16.5.1996 to the actual date of payment because it is only due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties that the amount has not been paid to him. When the amount of interest was not paid, the complainant gave a notice and filed a complaint. The opposite parties filed written statement and alleged that earlier the cheque was sent by registered post. On correspondence the complainant was asked to complete the formalities but the complainant did not complete the formalities, therefore, he is not entitled to any interest. There is no deficiency in service of the opposite parties.

After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Forum held that there was no deficiency in service of the opposite parties, therefore, there was no question of interest.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. Actual amount appears to have been paid. The dispute is merely of the interest. The amount was sent to the complainant well in time but if the complainant did not receive the letter and if it was unclaimed the opposite parties are not liable for that. The letter was sent on correct address and if the complainant was out, nobody can help him. It is a known fact that on issuing duplicate cheque of Bank Draft, certain formalities are to be complied with and if the complainant himself did not comply with those formalities, the opposite parties cannot be said to be negligent. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred a case decided by us reported in I (2004) CPJ 327, Nisha Singhal v. Unit Trust of India. The facts of that case are different one. Here the opposite parties have taken utmost care to pay the amount well in time. If the complainant himself did not receive it, nobody can help him.

THE learned Forum was perfectly justified in holding that there was no deficiency in service of the opposite parties and has correctly dismissed the complaint. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER THE appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.