Unit Trust of India found guilty of deficient service by Consumer Commission, ordered to pay compensation and interest.

The Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the Unit Trust of India guilty of deficiency in service for failing to make a maturity payment to the complainant. The Commission directed the Unit Trust of India to pay the maturity amount along with interest and compensation for mental harassment. Additionally, the Commission emphasized the legal liability of the Unit Trust of India in ensuring the correct delivery of payments and ruled that interest should be applied on the maturity amount from the due date until the actual payment date, affirming the decision of the District Forum.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deficiency in service by the Unit Trust of India regarding the maturity payment.
2. Discrepancy in the delivery of maturity cheques and subsequent encashment.
3. Legal liability of the Unit Trust of India in ensuring delivery of payment.
4. Applicability of interest on the maturity amount.

Issue 1: Deficiency in service by the Unit Trust of India regarding the maturity payment:
The complainant invested in the MISG 90(II) Scheme with the Unit Trust of India, expecting maturity after seven years. Despite the maturity date passing, the complainant did not receive the payment. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the Unit Trust of India guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to pay the maturity amount along with interest and compensation for mental harassment.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in the delivery of maturity cheques and subsequent encashment:
The appellant claimed to have dispatched two cheques to the complainant at a Varanasi address, which were allegedly encashed by unauthorized persons. The complainant, in response, stated that he had provided his correct Chandigarh address and bank account details to the appellant, emphasizing that the cheques were sent to the wrong address and subsequently encashed without his authorization.

Issue 3: Legal liability of the Unit Trust of India in ensuring delivery of payment:
The District Forum verified that the complainant had indeed provided his updated Chandigarh address to the appellant, contradicting the appellant's claim of dispatching the cheques to Varanasi. The Forum noted that the cheques were issued after the complainant's address update, indicating negligence on the part of the Unit Trust of India in ensuring the correct delivery of the maturity payment.

Issue 4: Applicability of interest on the maturity amount:
Citing a relevant legal precedent, the Commission emphasized that the liability of the appellant, Unit Trust of India, does not cease merely by claiming to have posted the cheques. The Commission modified the District Forum's order to include interest on the maturity amount from the due date until the actual payment date, in addition to the costs awarded. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, affirming the payment of interest on the maturity value along with the specified costs.

The judgment by the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission addressed the issues of service deficiency, delivery discrepancies, legal liability, and interest applicability in a detailed manner, ultimately ensuring fair resolution and upholding the complainant's rights in the case.

---