UTI Mutual Fund vs PREM LATA AGARWAL

THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the appellant was directed to pay price to the complainant @ Rs. 14.25 per unit and to pay interest @ 9% after 23.7.2001 and also compensation of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) along with cost of Rs. 550/- (Rupees five hundred fifty) was awarded to the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased four certificates for 5370 units as detailed in the complaint. THEse all four certificates were deposited in the office of the appellant on 21.5.2001 and by that date the amount was to be paid @ Rs. 14.25 per unit. The price was not paid instead the appellant tried to renew it. When they did not hearafter notice, the complaint was filed. The only dispute which was pressed by the appellant is that the complainant did not give the certificates in the Dehradun Office at Rajpur Road to the Branch Manager personally and, therefore, there was no question of payment of the price.

At any rate, the certificates are admitted to have been received if these were not give personally to the Branch Manager, how it came into possession of the appellant has not been disclosed. The appellant did not inform any other mode by which the certificates were received by them, if these were not handed over to the Branch Manager. In the complaint, in para 2, the complainant has alleged that he has surrendered the abovenoted all 4 certificates for redemption on 21.5.2001 to UTI Office, Rajpur Road, Dehradun personally after duly discharge and attested by Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. Regarding this plea, it has only been alleged in the written statement, in parawise comments that as per the rules it is mandatory to furnish the Bank particulars at the time of repurchase/maturity. The unit certificates held by the complainant were submitted without mentioning her Bank particulars. Due to this fact, the unit certificates were rejected and returned under objection. It is not said if these were not submitted to the Branch Manager, how it was submitted to the appellant. If it was submitted to the Branch Manager, it was the duty of the Branch Manager to have informed the complainant to mention the Bank particulars. This is the deficiency of the Branch Manager to accept the certificates for redemption without informing the certificate holder to mention the Bank particulars. The deficiency of the Branch Manager is the deficiency of the employer and the company. However, there was no prayer by the complainant for repurchasement of US-64 under special package and the appellant could not have offered for repurchase without a consent on proper application by the complainant. We fully agree with the finding of the learned Forum that there was deficiency in service by the appellant and the complaint was rightly allowed.

THIS appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.