TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2008 and on 16-11-2008 respectively. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly stated as follows: The Unit Trust of India framed a scheme called Raj Lakshmi Unit Scheme and issued a brochure Ex. A.4 stipulating the terms and condi- tions of the scheme. The scheme as set out in the brochure and published is in the following terms: "1. The Scheme: The Scheme provides for an investment that will grow 21 times in 20 years. Thus, Rs. 1,000 invested in the name of a female child below the age of one year will become Rs. 21,000 after 20 years and Rs. 10,000 will become Rs. 2.1 lakhs. Depending upon the age of child for whom the investment is made, the maturity value will vary from a minimum of Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 21,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osite party, initially, in Ex. A.1, i.e., the certificate issued in respect of purchase of units of 1200 in favour of the first complainant, mentioned 16-11-2008 as maturity date. But, by letter dated 21-4-1993, Ex. A.5, the opposite party modified the maturity date from 16-10-2008 to 16-10-2009, in respect of first complainant with regard to certificates, Exs. A. 2 and A.3. In respect of the second complainant the date of maturity was shown as 23-10-2008 instead of 8-4-2008. 3. The grandfather, guardian of the complainants, wrote to the opposite party that according to the terms of brochure the amount becomes payable on attaining the age of 20 years and therefore, requested to rectify the dates of maturity mentioned in the certificate t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompletion of age of 20 years. The dates of maturity were rightly corrected in Ex. A.1 and correctly mentioned in Exs. A.2 and A.3. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Unit Trust of India. 5. On behalf of the complainants Exs. A.1 to A.6 were filed and on behalf of the opposite party Exs. B. 1 to B. 7 were marked. Guardian of the complainants was examined as P.W. 1 and on behalf of the Unit Trust of India Mr. Anil Anand was examined as D.W.I. On consideration of the evidence on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Unit Trust of India had issued a brochure marked as Ex. B. 5 and pamphlet Ex. B.4 in which it was clearly mentioned that investment is till the child completes the age of 20 years. It was not me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust was not published and was not known to the complainants' guardian. For the first time the said scheme was published in the gazette on 17-4-1993 but by that time the grandfather of the complainants purchased units on the only information available to him and its benefits as mentioned in the brochure and pamphlet Exs. B.5 and B. 4. It clearly shows that the date of maturity and payment is the completion of attaining the age of 20 years. Therefore, the guardian of the complainants invested money under the scheme as he will get the money after completion of 20 years of the complainants to enable him to perform their marriages etc. He therefore, could not have known that the maturity amount will be payable only after completion of lock-in pe....