National consumer disputes redressal panel junks UTI plea

Tribune news service

Chandigarh, June 29

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Unit Trust of India (UTI), Mumbai, against an order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.

The UTI challenged the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, directing them to give all maturity amount to a man — Chandigarh resident Vardan Singh Rana — whose benefits were transferred by the UTI to the account of his stepmother after the later updated the documents and claimed to be his mother.

Ram Murti Singh Rana, Vardan Singh’s father, had purchased units of Children Gift Growth Fund, 1986, in the name of Vardan who was a minor at that time. Vardan Rana became a major in July 2010. When he approached the UTI for the payment of the value of the units, he was told that the same had already been paid on April 28, 2009, and April 29, 2009, to his mother Indira Rani.

He challenged the decision before the District Forum, Chandigarh, seeking compensation. He lost the case after the UTI contested that Indira Rani, submitted guardian updation form with a letter from a bank giving the details of a bank account in the name of the complainant. The signatures of Indira Rani had been attested by the bank. Her name was accordingly updated as the guardian of the complainant and a cheque in the name of the complainant with his account number printed on it was sent to Indira Rani. Vardan challenged the Forum’s decision dated December 20, 2011, before the State Commission, Chandigarh.

The commission had ruled that the UTI erred in making the payment to complainant’s stepmother and directed the UTI to pay a sum of Rs3,49,878 to the complainant with interest as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. Compensation quantified at Rs10,000 and the cost of litigation was Rs5,000.

Vardan Rana had proven that the name of his biological mother was known to the UTI before the name of Indira Rani was updated as the guardian of the complainant in 2005. The national commission ruled that the UTI was grossly negligent in updating the name of Indira Rani as Rana’s mother. The order said that for the reasons stated above, the view taken by the state commission does not call for any interference by this commission.