The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005) M. L. Agrawal, son of Late Pyare Lal Resident of Nainital Road, Ranibagh Petitioner Nainital - 263126 versus Regional Manager and Administrator UTI Investment Services Ltd. 174, 1st Floor, Rajendra Bhavan Respondent Rajendra Place, New Delhi BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner In Person For the Respondent Mr. Dharam Dev, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission, after detailed discussion of the pleadings and evidence, directed the opposite party (OP)/respondent to ensure that 6.60% Tax Free ARS Assured Return Scheme Bonds of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) along with upto date interest warrants were sent to the complainants within one month from the date of the order. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 5. In dealing with the appeal of the complainant, the State Commission also came to the conclusion that the contention of the complainant against the validity of the termination of the CGGF Scheme was not well-founded and as regards the other allegation pertaining to non-receipt of redemption proceeds in four out of the nine cases, the State Commission directed the OPs, as already noticed above. 6. The complainant has chosen to assail both these findings/directions of the State Commission in this revision petition. 7. We have heard the petitioner/complainant in person and Mr. Dharam Dev, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and considered the documents brought on record. 8. By its orders dated 10.12.2007 and 07.03.2008, this Commission had directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.88,278/- to the petitioner along with cost of Rs.1000/-. These directions were complied with, as noticed in the order dated 17.04.2008. The amount of Rs.88,278/- was the sum due according to the petitioner/complainant with interest upto 01.04.2004 @ 12.5% per annum on the redemption proceeds in the remaining three cases, because the ARS Bonds in respect of one of the minor (Chandresh) had been received in the meanwhile. 9. The petitioner claimed that this amount of Rs.88,278/- due on 01.04.2004 as redemption proceeds of the investments in three cases was actually paid in April 2008 by way of five cheques which could be encashed only on 30.04.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to interest on this amount @ 12.5% from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008. Further, in accordance with the terms of the CGGF Scheme, the two remaining minor investors (accounting for three investments certificate) would be entitled to further compensatory interest @ 6% per annum from 01.05.2008 till attaining the age of maturity. As per the calculation furnished by the petitioner, the interest for the period 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008 would come to Rs.45,022/- whereas that from 01.05.2008 till the respective dates of maturity of the two minors’ investments (sometime in January 2010) would come to Rs.8,404/-.Thus, the petitioner claimed further payment of Rs.53,426/- out of which he acknowledged the receipt of Rs.23,531/- leaving a balance of Rs.29,395/-. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of this Commission’s direction the respondent had paid Rs.88,278/- as the maturity value of the investments as on 01.04.2004. This included interest/return @ 12.5% per annum, as the petitioner had demanded. The legal validity of the respondent prematurely terminating the CGGFS could not be questioned, as had already been held by both the Fora below. From the petitioner’s admission before the District Forum, it was also quite clear he received/accepted the Bonds in one case and also encashed them. The ARS Bonds carried interest @ 6.60% per annum. Accordingly, the respondents had paid interest of Rs.23,351/- for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.04.2008 on the principal amount of the redemption value of the investments when payment due in the three remaining cases was made before this Commission in accordance with its directions. This payment of Rs.23,351/- had been acknowledged by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, no further amount was payable. 11. After careful consideration of the documents and calculations, we are in agreement with Mr. Dharam Dev that the payment due to the petitioner/complainant in accordance with the well-reasoned orders of the State Commission had been made along with interest, as per the admissible rate, for the period of delay that had taken place in making these payments. Therefore, there is no ground for us to pass any further directions beyond what has already been done by this Commission, in view of the payments made by the respondent in April 2008 and thereafter. 12. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish