Decided on December 06,2010

Chairman, Unit Trust Of India And Ors Appellant
H Subrahmania Bhat Respondents


- (1.) THE order dated 12 -03 -2010 of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 05/2009 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 54,926/ - with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint with compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - and costs of Rs. 3,000/ - within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
(2.) THE complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had entered into a contract with the opposite parties' by joining in the Senior Citizens Unit Plan (SCUP) floated by the opposite parties and that the complainant and his family were entitled to medical cover from the age of 58 years onwards. The complainant alleged that on 08 -01 -2008 he received a letter from the first opposite party informing that SCUP Scheme was to be terminated on 18 -02 -2009 and according to the complainant such action of the opposite parties tantamounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 16,00,732/ - with cost of Rs. 5,000/ -.
(3.) RESISTING the complaint the opposite parties filed version wherein it was contended that the opposite parties had every right to reform the scheme and finding that the SCUP Scheme was at a loss, they had issued a gazette publication terminating the said scheme on a future date. It was also submitted that SCUP Scheme was terminated giving options to the investors to get the benefits under the scheme as on date or to purchase insurance product of New India Assurance Company at a premium which was 30% less than those generally offered by the NIAC with certain relaxation regarding exclusion of diseases with no health checkup. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant did not opt for it and for the 1400 units of SCUP Scheme the complainant was eligible to get net asset value of Rs. 54926.20. It was also submitted that Clause XXX of the scheme provided for termination of the scheme at the discretion of Trust and there was no deficiency in service on their part as the investors were given option to receive the repurchase value of the units as per the public notice on 08 -01 -2008. Evidence consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Ext. A1 to A9 on his side. The Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company, Kasaragod was examined as PW2. The opposite parties marked Exts. B1 to B4.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.