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>Commission orders compensation for service deficiency, upholds consumer rights</h1> <h3>Dr. Haribhai L. Patel Versus Unit Trust of India</h3> The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the deficiency in service by opponent UTI in refusing ... Deficiency in services Issues:1. Dismissal of complaint by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum regarding reinvestment plan for unit certificates.2. Alleged refusal by opponent Unit Trust of India (UTI) to accept complainant's request for reinvestment of dividend.3. Dispute over non-acceptance of reinvestment plan for one of the unit certificates.4. Claim for compensation due to deficiency in service by UTI.Analysis:Issue 1: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant regarding the reinvestment plan for unit certificates. The complainant approached the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Issue 2: The opponent UTI allegedly refused to accept the complainant's request for reinvestment of dividend related to a specific unit certificate. The opponent claimed that the complainant had already sold and transferred the units covered by the certificate, thus losing the right to file the complaint.Issue 3: The dispute centered around the non-acceptance of the reinvestment plan for one of the unit certificates by the opponent UTI. The UTI failed to provide clear reasons for not accepting the complainant's request for reinvestment, leading to a finding of deficiency in service by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Issue 4: The Commission found that the opponent UTI's refusal to accept the complainant's initial request for the reinvestment plan amounted to deficiency in service. As a result, the Commission directed the UTI to pay token compensation of Rs. 300 to the complainant within six weeks. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the previous order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.In conclusion, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the deficiency in service by the opponent UTI in refusing to accept the complainant's request for reinvestment. The Commission ordered token compensation to be paid to the complainant, highlighting the importance of honoring consumer rights and ensuring fair treatment in financial transactions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
