UTI's Appeal Dismissed for Delay, Complainant Upheld

The Orissa State Commission dismissed UTI's appeal as time-barred, upholding the District Forum's order in favor of the Complainant. The District Forum had directed UTI to pay Rs. 10,000 with interest and compensation. The UTI's appeal was delayed and not condoned, resulting in dismissal. The Commission modified the relief granted by the District Forum, instructing the Complainant to deposit a duplicate draft with UTI for unit issuance under the original scheme, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissal by Orissa State Commission as time-barred.
2. Alleged deficiency in service by UTI agent.
3. Ex-parte proceedings at District Forum.
4. Delayed appeal filing by UTI.
5. Jurisdiction of District Forum in granting relief.
6. UTI's willingness to issue units under MIUS-90(II) Cumulative.
7. Modification of relief granted by District Forum.

Analysis:

1. The Revision Petition stemmed from the Orissa State Commission's decision, deeming the UTI's appeal time-barred and upholding the District Forum's order in favor of the Complainant. The District Forum had directed the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest and additional compensation, which the UTI contested through the appeal.

2. The Complainant's grievance revolved around non-receipt of 1000 units of Unit Trust of India (UTI) despite payment. The local UTI agent, made the 2nd Opposite Party, admitted receiving the payment but failed to deliver the units, prompting the complaint alleging deficient service.

3. Despite being served notice, the Opposite Parties remained absent, leading to ex-parte proceedings at the District Forum, which ruled in favor of the Complainant, granting the reliefs sought.

4. The UTI's appeal to the Orissa State Commission was delayed by 54 days, a delay the Commission refused to condone, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred due to the delay in filing.

5. The jurisdictional question arose concerning the relief granted by the District Forum, especially after subsequent events revealed that the Complainant had obtained a duplicate bank draft and had not deposited it with UTI, prompting a reconsideration of the relief granted.

6. UTI expressed willingness to issue units under MIUS-90(II) Cumulative to the Complainant, offering a resolution to the dispute and indicating a potential alternative course of action.

7. Ultimately, the Commission modified the relief granted by the District Forum, directing the Complainant to deposit the duplicate draft with UTI for the issuance of units under the original scheme, effectively setting aside the previous relief granted and instructing each party to bear their own costs.

This comprehensive analysis delves into the various legal issues, procedural aspects, and the ultimate resolution provided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in this case.

---