1997 (5) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Trust of India as time barred. 2. The facts of this case are that on 14-11-1992 the complainant applied for purchase of 1,000 units of Unit Trust of India, Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, the name of petitioner's minor daughter Ritika Ahuja. The Scheme was for minor females only. Application Form along with demand draft of Rs. 10,000 was handed over to the agent of UTI. According to the complainant, as per para No. 1 of the application, the maturity clause of the unit was on completion of 20 years age of minor female child. The application preferred by the complainant was accepted by the UTI and a Certificate for 1,000 units of Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme dated 14-11-1992 was issued to the complainant. According to the complainant, as per the terms ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner formu-lated and introduced the scheme in 1992 for the benefits of girl child. The main features of this scheme were that any investment made in the scheme would grow 21 times the lock-in-period' of 20 years and that the amount to be paid on maturity would be depending upon the 'lock-in-period'. According to the scheme, the lock-in-period' differed from 16-20 years depending upon the age of the child. Up to one year, the 'lock-in-period' will be 20 years. If it is above 1 to 2 years, the 'lock-in-period' will be 19 years. If it is above 2 to 3 years, the 'lock-in-period' will be 18 years. If it is above 3 to 4 years, the 'lock-in-period' will be 17 years. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5 years at the time of acceptance of the application, the minimum 'lock-in-period' was supposed to be 16 years on the date of acceptance of application i.e., 14-11-1992, therefore, payment would mature after 'lock- in-period'of 16 years on 14-11-2008. The respondent wanted to reduce the 'lock-in-period' by one year i.e., from 14-11-2008 to 14-11-2007. The District Forum committed a legal error in allowing the complaint. A simple clerical mistake /omission in the printing could not be permitted to stay unrectified and thereby create discrimination between various investors. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Commission delivered in the case of Unit Trust of India v. Kumari Gautami [1996] CPJ 203/ 4 SCL 227 (NCDRC -Delhi) 7. On the....