Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 38 (UTT)

VINEET KUMAR GUPTA v. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

2005-02-17

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 1.3.2004 passed by the District Forum, Dehra Dun whereby the complaint of the complainant was rejected. 2. The complainant has purchased 1500 units of the UTI. These were to mature on 1.1.1998. The UTI did not pay the amount, hence a notice was given on 21.11.1998 to the UTI. When the money was not paid to the complainant, he filed the complaint. 3. The UTI admitted every fact but took the plea that on the basis of this certificate the complainant has taken a loan from the Bank. The certificates were pledged with the Bank. The UTI paid the amount to the Bank and, therefore, the payment has been made. There is no deficiency in service on behalf of the UTI. 4. The learned Forum took the evidence of the parties and held that since the UTI has paid the amount to the Bank under the authority of the complainant, therefore, there is no deficiency in service of the UTI and, therefore, rejected the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. One thing which we want to emphasize at the very beginning is that we are not Civil Court to decide the rights and titles of the parties. We have to give relief to the complainant only when we find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant may be legal and rightful but unless there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we cannot allow the complaint and in that case, to ventilate his rightful cause, the complainant has to approach the Civil Court, the Court of principal and inherent jurisdiction. We have only to find out the deficiency in service. 6. Now to see if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the UTI, it is admitted fact that the certificates were pledged with the Bank. It is further admitted that the complainant has taken loan of the pledged certificates. When the certificates were pledged with the Bank, the UTI was free to pay the amount to the Bank and it has done so. It is further admitted that the complainant has taken loan of the pledged certificates. When the certificates were pledged with the Bank, the UTI was free to pay the amount to the Bank and it has done so. The case of the complainant is that he has liquidated the debt of the Bank and got his certificates released and he has sent the copy of the release order and certificate of the Bank regarding the liquidation of the debt to the agent of the UTI but still if the amount has been paid to the Bank by the UTI, this is deficiency in service of the UTI. The events took place in such haste and hurry sequence that the units were to mature on 1.1.1998, by 2.1.1998 the amount should have been paid to the complainant. Therefore, we are fully in agreement with the finding of the learned Forum that the UTI starts maturity proceedings few months earlier, therefore, if on 1.1.1998 without the knowledge of liquidation and release of the certificates, the UTI paid the amount to the Bank, the UTI cannot be held to be guilty. The letter of the complainant is dated 12.12.1997. It is said to have been sent by registered post. The receipt of registration has been filed but it is not clear on what date it has been sent. It has been sent to M/s. M.N. Dastur and Co. Ltd., who is said to be the agent of the UTI. In this letter neither the date of release of certificates by the State Bank of India has been mentined, nor there is any letter of release. Only a certificate from the State Bank of India has been filed, in which it has been written to the complainant, “with reference to your letter dated 15.7.1998, we advise that demand loan taken against above certificates on 16.3.1993 was liquidated by you on 30.4.1993 and the certificates were released to you after obtaining receipt immediately”. This letter shows that the release of the certificates was in 1993 itself, then why on 12.12.1997 information has been given to the UTI has not been explained. This letter shows that the release of the certificates was in 1993 itself, then why on 12.12.1997 information has been given to the UTI has not been explained. If these were released in 1993 itself, the information should have been given to UTI soon after April 1993 itself but the bank does not appear to have given any information to the UTI and information given by the complainant is only 19 days earlier. It is not known whether the letter was received by the agent within these 19 days or not and if the UTI has got no information of release of certificates before 1.1.1998, the UTI cannot be held to be guilty. Except, this letter dated 12.12.1997, no other mode of information to the UTI has been explained or narrated by the complainant and if this letter has not been received by the agent of the UTI, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the UTI. To our utter surprise a letter appears to have written by Vineet Kumar Gupta, complainant to M/s. M.N. Dastur & Co. Ltd. on 13.7.1998, in which it is written that he has no loan outstanding but it is not written in this letter that on 12.12.1997 any registered letter was sent to them and if it was sent to them, it has been received by them. The surprising part is that correspondence has been made with M/s. M.N. Dastur and Co. Ltd. but M/s M.N. Dastur and Co. Ltd. has not been made a party to the proceedings to show that it has received the letter and has delivered it to the UTI or has taken proceedings on their behalf. It is true that M/s. M.N. Dastur & Co. Ltd. is an agent of UTI but to prove deficiency in service of the UTI, M/s. Dastur and Co. Ltd. was necessary party to the proceedings. Not only this we are surprised at the attitude of the Bank. The loan has been liquidated in 1993. The UTI says that it has paid the amount to the Bank. Ltd. is an agent of UTI but to prove deficiency in service of the UTI, M/s. Dastur and Co. Ltd. was necessary party to the proceedings. Not only this we are surprised at the attitude of the Bank. The loan has been liquidated in 1993. The UTI says that it has paid the amount to the Bank. If the Bank again received the amount, it should have refunded the amount to the UTI or should have given the amount to the complainant but again to emphasize that the complainant has slept over his own rights by not impleading the Bank as party to the proceedings, otherwise the Bank should have been asked whether the loan has been liquidated or not and if the loan has been liquidated, why the amount was not refunded to the UTI or paid to the complainant but it appears that the amount has been received by the complainant from the Bank, this is why even at this appellate stage, when we expressed that we may issue a notice to the Bank and we may ask the Bank for the refund of the amount to the complainant along with interest, the learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently objected to it saying that that is a matter between the UTI and the Bank, why should he implead the Bank. The argument may be correct but we find that there is no deficiency in service of the UTI and the claim of the complainant even if rightful, the learned Forum was also right in rejecting the complaint. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to sue his Bank and to claim the amount from the Bank itself, even impleading U.T.I. as party. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a civil suit against the Bank and U.T.I. if he finds it fit and in the event any such suit is filed, the finding recorded by the learned Forum or our finding shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.