JUDGMENT : Basanti Devi, Member 1. Aforesaid two C.D. cases were filed by husband and wife respectively, alleging unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service against the Appellants in withholding payment of full value of units after termination of the scheme under Monthly Income Plan-95. 2. As both the C.D. cases were based on similar facts and law and relief sought for were same, the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar has passed a common order on 04-05-2004. In this end of the view, we are also inclined to pass a common order in both the appeals mentioned above for the snake of convenience. 3. Vide aforesaid common orders dated 04-05-2004, the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar has partly allowed the complaint against the opposite parties, the present Appellants, without awarding costs and compensation. It has been directed to the Appellants by the District Forum to pay Rs. 3.08 per unit for 4900 units i. e. Rs. 15092/- only, along with interest @9% per annum with effect from 01-07-2002 till the date of payment to the complainants (Respondents). It has also been directed by the District Forum to the opposite parties to pay dividend @9% per annum for the period from 01-04-2002 to 30-06-2002 on the amount invested by the complainants in the MIP-95 scheme. 4. The Appellants have challenged the aforesaid findings orders mainly on the ground that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that Appellants have caused no deficiency in service or were not indulged into unfair trade practice as the investment in the scheme is subject to market rate risk and Net Asset Value, in short, N.A.V.. Therefore, no guarantee or assurance about the performance of the Scheme was assured by the Appellants to the Respondent. Moreover, the District Forum wrongly allowed the C.D. cases in part, having arrived at a clear finding that Appellants have caused no deficiency in service. We have heard the Learned Counsels from both sides and perused the xerox copies of documents filed in the C.D. cases. 5. The case of the complainant in C.D. Case No. 217 of 2002 and C.D. Case No. 218 of 2002 in brief is that each of the complainants purchased 4,900 units face value of Rs. 10/- per unit worth Rs. 5. The case of the complainant in C.D. Case No. 217 of 2002 and C.D. Case No. 218 of 2002 in brief is that each of the complainants purchased 4,900 units face value of Rs. 10/- per unit worth Rs. 49,000/ each, from the office of opposite party No. 1 the Branch Manager, Unit Trust of India, in short U.T. I. under Monthly Income Plan-95, in short MIP-95. Accordingly, U.T.I has issued certificate Nos. 20095160036282 and 20095160036281 on 10-05-1995 in favour of the complainants Syamsunder Rao and K. Bhagyalaxmi respectively. The U.T. I. has undertaken to declare distribution rate every year based on the income that scheme is expected to generate during the yearunder the Scheme. The period of holding is 7 years from 1st July, 1995 and the date of termination is 30th June, 2002. The opposite parties / Appellants paid them the following dividends year wise from 1995-96: Years : 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Rate of Dividends : 13% 14% 14% 12.5% 10.75% 9% 5% Nil While sending low dividends for the year 1999-2000 as per Annexure-3 and for the year 2000-2001 as per Annexure-4, Appellants had intimated the reason of low dividend rates. But, when dividend rate was at a dissent rate of 5% per annum for the year 2001-2002, the U.T. I. did not offer any explanation for the same, when investors naturally expected better rate of dividend under MIP-95 as U.T. I. offered under MIP-96 (II) 9% dividend for the year 2001-2002. For the year 2002-2003 U.T. I. had not offered any monthly dividend under MIP-95 on the ground of depression of N.A.V.. According to the complainants/Respondents, investment and mobilization of funds of the Respondents under the scheme has not being made by the U.T. I., for the interest of the Unit holders as a result of which dividend rates lowered down for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. In this way, Appellants have caused deficiency in service to the investors particularly the Respondents adopting, unfair trade practice. Therefore, the Respondents (complainants) had filed aforesaid two C.D. cases to direct the Appellants to pay immediately the balance value of 4900 units @3.08 per unit i. e. Rs. 15,092/- along with 9% interest per annum from 01-07-2002 till date of payment amending the prayer para (a) of the complaint petition dated 02-07-2003 on the ground that Respondents have paid Rs. 15,092/- along with 9% interest per annum from 01-07-2002 till date of payment amending the prayer para (a) of the complaint petition dated 02-07-2003 on the ground that Respondents have paid Rs. 2254/- @Rs. 0.46 paisa per unit for 4900 units held by them during the pendency of C.D. cases. The Respondents have also sought for the relief as per para (b) of the prayer petition of the complaint petitions to pay dividend @9% per annum for the period from 01-04-2002 to 30-06-2002 on the amount invested in the MIP-95 and compensation and pendentilite and future interest. 6. The Appellants admit that Respondents have invested Rs. 49,000/-purchasing 4900 units at the rate of Rs10/- per one unit and about issuance of aforesaid two certificates for the aforesaid period under MIP-95. They have agreed to have paid dividends for the year 1995-96 to 2001-2002 to the Respondents (complainants) as has been stated above by the Respondents. They have also admitted to have intimated them about the reason of low dividends for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and not to have intimated them reason of low dividends. But, it is not obligatory on their part to explain about the fall of rate to the investors as the investors know about the risk factor of investment in the units. As a matter of fact the investment in the mutual fund scheme is subject to marked risks and N.A. v. of the plan which may rise or fall depending upon the market forces which investors / complainants knew. In such circumstance question of giving guarantee and assurance about satisfactory performance of the scheme by the Appellants does not arise. The performance of previous scheme of U.T. I. cannot assure better future result. Being fully aware about the risk factor, voluntarily, Respondents had entered into this scheme for which they cannot protest for the fluctuation of dividend rate. Further, investment under Mutual Fund Scheme is regulated by S.E. B.I. who has not made any deviation of the scheme to invite low rate per unit. They have paid Respondents in accordance with the return achieved by the MIP-95 scheme. Therefore, they have not indulged into unfair trade practice in the matter and have not caused deficiency in service. 7. Further, investment under Mutual Fund Scheme is regulated by S.E. B.I. who has not made any deviation of the scheme to invite low rate per unit. They have paid Respondents in accordance with the return achieved by the MIP-95 scheme. Therefore, they have not indulged into unfair trade practice in the matter and have not caused deficiency in service. 7. The Appellants have challenged the said orders dated 04-05-2004 of the District Forum on the ground mentioned above and have stated that District Forum should not have directed to pay dividend @9% per annum when dividend for the year 2001-2002 is 5% and when they are no way responsible for fall of the rate of dividend which depends upon market force. They are also not obliged under said scheme to explain investors about reason of fall of rate of dividends and performance of previous scheme MIP-96(II) in no way shall improve future dividend. It is seen by us that the District Forum found no reason to disagreed with the Appellants in this respect and has categorically arrived into a clear finding that by not giving suitable explanation about fall of dividends to 5% per annum for the year 2001-2002 the opposite parties (Appellants) have not caused dificiency in service. 8. The point to be decided by us in this appeal is as to whether due to improper mobilization and investment of funds of the Respondents by the Appellants under MIP-95, the dividend rates lowered down gradually to a considerable rate, more particularly to the rate of 5% for the year 2001-2002. But, nothing before us is there to hold that the Appellants have improperly invested the funds of the complainant and due to poor mobilization of funds, the rate was lowered down to 5%. Investment in the Mutual Fund Scheme is subject to market risk and N.A.V. of plan. Knowing fully well about risk of investment under MIP-95, Appellants have entered into this scheme. U.T. I. under this scheme have not promised or given assurance about increase of rate of dividend. As Appellants are not proved to have mobilized and invested the investor's ('Respondents') funds carelessly or indeterimental to the interest of the Respondents, they cannot be charged for causing dificiency in service to the Respondent. U.T. I. under this scheme have not promised or given assurance about increase of rate of dividend. As Appellants are not proved to have mobilized and invested the investor's ('Respondents') funds carelessly or indeterimental to the interest of the Respondents, they cannot be charged for causing dificiency in service to the Respondent. Since, the Appellants have caused no deficiency in service to the Respondent and this is the categorical finding of the District Forum, the District Forum has committed error in partly allowing the complaint cases as aforesaid in favour of the complainant / Respondents. The Respondents, in view of the materials discussed above, are not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the impugned orders of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside. 9. In the result, both the appeals are allowed on contest without cost in the circumstance of the case. The common orders dated 04-05-2004 of the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No. 217 of 2002 and No. 218 of 2002 is set-aside. 10. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Subash Mahtab, Member 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed