AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr. B.M. Patnaik the learned Counsel for the appellant - U.T.I. None appears for the complainant-respondent. Considering the nature of the present appeal/revision, we have thought it appropriate to dispose of the matter even in the absence of the complainant.
THE complainant approached the District Forum with an allegation that though she purchased 500 units under Mastergain-92 scheme certificates for a face value of Rs. 5,000/- from the U.T.I. she did not receive the certificate. In the absence of such certificate, she could not receive the payment of the enhanced value of the unit which then stood of prevalent as Rs. 18/- instead of Rs. 10/- which was the original value of each unit at the time of purchasing the certificates. The case of the present appellant was, infact the certificates bearing Nos. 02158-066 to 021358070 under Folio No. E2463882 were despatched to the complainant by regd. post on 20.11.1992 at the address given in the application form. They relied on Ext. A the ''Postal Bulk'' showing the Post Offie receiving the certificates for despatch. Therefore, they said there was no deficiency of service.
We have heard Mr. Patnaik. We have also perused the impugned order. No reason has been given in that order for the finding that there was an enhanced value of the unit of Rs. 18/-. There is no discussion with regard to the documents filed by the parties. Mr. Patnaik however informs this Commission that though the impugned order was passed on 13.9.1994, the U.T.I. had desptached the duplicate certificate to the complainant on 14.9.1994 which according to Mr. Patnaik the complainant must have received. There is no positive information with either Mr. Patnaik or this Commission that in fact the complainant has received the duplicate certificate in the meantime and has encashed the same. Admittedly the locking period is over. In the absence of any such information we are unable to give any specific direction at our end. However, we are of the view that the order being a cryptic order is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. We allow this revision and set aside the order of the Form below and direct the Forum to take up the matter afresh after giving notice to the parties and pass a reasoned order on merit after considering all materials on record. No cost. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Revision allowed.