S. SWATHI JAYASHREE vs BOI MUTUAL FUND

THE complainants have filed these complaints seeking for recovery of monies from the O.Ps. stating that, the amount paid by the O.Ps. to the complainant is less than the promise held out, under the scheme called "BOI Double" Plus (1990) Scheme.

THE facts in this case, are as follows: Complainant in each of the complaints, have invested a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs under the abovesaid scheme with the O.Ps. As per the scheme, the maturity of the amount invested is on expiry of 10 years, from the date of the investment. On maturity, the complainants were paid in total a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs. THE grievance of the complainants is that under the scheme, they are entitled for another 20 lakhs. The defence put forth by the O.P. in their version is that, what has been paid to the complainants is in accordance with the scheme, and, therefore, there is no liability on their party to pay anything more that what has already been paid. In order to decide the dispute between the parties, it is just and necessary to refer certain clauses in the scheme. Clause 3 of the Scheme reads, as follows: "BOI Double Plus" is a Growth Scheme under which the investors shall get on the expiry of 10 years ''4 times plus'' of face value of each Boinanza held. However, an investor has an option to take the growth either by way of income (Plan A) or by way of Capital Gain (Plan B) as mentioned below."

Clause 13 reads, as follows: "On redemption of Boinanzas upon the expiry of 10 years, a Boinanza holder will be entitled to receive from the Trustees ''4 times plus'' of the face value of each Boinanza held."

Learned Counsel, for the complainants submits that, the word plus find between the words 4 times and of the face value implies that, the O.Ps. are liable to pay four times of the investment plus the face value, that is, the investment made. Learned Counsel, for the O.Ps. submits that, the words 4 times plus are to be read as one word, and if that is so, what is liable to be paid is only the 4 times of the face value and not the 4 times of the face value plus face value. No doubt, there is something in what the learned Counsel, appearing for the complainants submitted, regarding inter-pretation of the above said clauses. But, if we read the 4 times plus as one word then, it is only the times of the face value payable, and not the 4 times of the investment plus face value of the investment. Learned Counsel for the O.Ps. has taken us through para No. 1 of the version filed by the O.Ps. and submits that even the complainants, also, has understood the above said clauses as 4 times of the face value and not 4 times of the face value plus face value. No doubt in the said para, the O.Ps. have stated that, what is payable by the O.Ps. is, 4 times of the face value of the Boinanza on the maturity. But, the learned Counsel for the complainants submits that, the said sentence shall not be read in isolation, it shall be read along with other averments, so as to understand the meaning of the above said clauses. No doubt according to the complainants, they say that they are entitled for 4 times of the face value plus the face value. As we have observed earlier to our mind, the clauses referred above are to be interpreted to mean that, the complainants are entitled for 4 times of the face value and not times of the face value plus the face value. Therefore, what has already been paid by the O.Ps. to the complainants is in accordance with the Scheme formulated, and, therefore, these complaints are liable to be dismissed.

IN the result, we pass the following order. Complaints are dismissed. Complaints dismissed.