- (1.) BY way of this appeal original opponent the L.I.C. Mutual Fund has challenged order dated 3rd January, 2001 rendered by the learned Rajkot District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 155/1998. Impugned order reads as under: "Complaint filed by Pravinchandra R. Desai for himself and on behalf of his family members, (2) Hansa P. Desai, (3) Prerana P. Desai (4) Devang P. Desai of Rajkot against L.I.C. Mutual Fund, Registered Office; Industrial Assurance Building, 4th Floor, Opposite Churchgate Station, Mumbai -400 020 is allowed as under: Opponent L.I.C. Mutual Fund, Mumbai is directed and ordered to pay to each complainant dividend/interest at the rate of 12% on Rs. 15,000/ - from 1.4.1996 to 31.10.1996 of Rs. 1,050/ - (Rupees one thousand and fifty only). Opponent is further ordered to pay Rs. 1,050/ - (Rupees one thousand and fifty only) from 1.11.1996 till realization of the said amount along with 15% interest to each complainant. Opponent also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. Complainant's rest of the claim is disallowed. Opponent is ordered and directed to pay the aforesaid amount of dividend/interest to the complainant within 2 (two) months on receipt of copy of the judgment. If opponent failed to pay the aforesaid amount to the each complainant, in that case complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount from the opponent."
(2.) IT was the complainants' case that complainant No. 1 for himself and on behalf of the members of his family, complainant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had applied for and come to be allotted 1500 units each of Rs. 10/ - as per the particulars set out in the complaint, by the opponent Mutual Fund in its scheme named Dhanashree -1989 (Income and Growth Unit Scheme). According to the complainant last dividend was paid to the complainants upto March, 1996. The units were redeemed as on 31.10.1996 but redemption amount was paid late by 1 month and 22 days i.e., on 23.12.1996. The complainant, therefore, prayed for dividend for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.10.1996 and interest for delayed payment as aforesaid with penal interest.
(3.) THE opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that learned Forum did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint, that the claim could not be said to be correct and bona fide, that on 31.10.1996 when the scheme was closed Unit Holder was entitled to redemption payment, that the scheme does not stipulate payment of dividend at the time of redemption for the period which is part of the financial year (broken period 1.4.1996 to 31.10.1996) and that at the time of redemption Unit holder would be entitled to repayment of Net asset value (NAV). The opponent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint as it was without any foundation for the claim. Learned Forum came to the conclusion that as the office of the LIC of India was situated in Rajkot and as part of cause of action had also arisen at Rajkot it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Learned Forum also proceeded to consider one of the conditions with regard to assured payment of dividend @ 12% by upholding the claim of the complainants. It has finally held deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Mutual Fund in respect of belated payment of redemption amount. That is how the impugned order came to be passed.;