Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suspension of the Children's Gift Growth Fund scheme by the appellant was consistent with the scheme framed under the Unit Trust of India Act, and whether refusal to accept further contributions constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Analysis: The scheme was framed under Section 21 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, and clause 33 of the scheme reserved to the Trust the right to terminate the scheme on notice. The public notice issued in the newspaper stated suspension of the scheme with effect from a specified date. A contractual or administrative suspension of future subscriptions was held to be within the larger power to terminate the scheme, and therefore not inconsistent with the scheme terms. Since the scheme itself was statutory, the principle of promissory estoppel did not bar the appellant from suspending it. The benefits already accruing to the children under the brochure remained unaffected, and the refusal to accept further contributions could not be treated as a deficiency in service within Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Conclusion: The suspension of the scheme was valid, promissory estoppel did not apply, and no deficiency in service was made out; the complaints were not maintainable.