TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consumer Commission Upholds Forum Decision on Promissory Estoppel</h1> <h3>Unit Trust of India Versus Kumari Gauthami and Kumar Greeshma</h3> The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the representations made in ... Deficiency Issues:Interpretation of maturity dates in investment scheme brochure and pamphlet, Doctrine of promissory estoppel application, Alleged deficiency of service by the Unit Trust of India, Chairman's power to relax scheme provisions.Analysis:1. Interpretation of Maturity Dates: The case involved a dispute regarding the maturity dates of investments made in a scheme by a guardian for minors, based on the terms mentioned in the scheme brochure and pamphlet. The complainants argued that the maturity amount should be paid upon the completion of 20 years of age by the minors, as per the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet.2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The District Forum applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, holding that the guardian relied on the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet while investing in the scheme. The Forum concluded that the opposite party could not retract from the promised maturity dates after the investment was made, estopping them from changing the terms to the disadvantage of the investors.3. Alleged Deficiency of Service: The Unit Trust of India contended that the maturity dates were correctly mentioned based on the lock-in period specified in the scheme approved by the board. They argued that the brochure might have caused ambiguity by mentioning the child's age instead of the lock-in period. However, the District Forum found in favor of the complainants, emphasizing that the representations in the brochure and pamphlet were binding.4. Chairman's Power to Relax Scheme Provisions: The District Forum highlighted Clause XXXII of the Scheme, allowing the Chairman to relax or delete any provisions for mitigating hardship or ensuring smooth operation of the scheme. In this context, the Forum suggested that the Chairman could exercise this power in favor of the complainants to address the dispute regarding maturity dates and uphold the principles of promissory estoppel.5. Final Decision: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet were binding on the Unit Trust of India. The Commission found in favor of the complainants, citing the application of promissory estoppel and the reliance placed on the promised maturity dates by the guardian. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
