Bank told to
pay returns
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, April 9
In a case of its kind, the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-II has directed a mutual fund
company to pay the complainant an amount equal to the
assured minimum returns as redemption
value and burdened it with costs of Rs 1500.
The complainant, Mrs
Shakuntala Brij Mohan of Sector 7 A, subscribed to 200
units of Ind Jyothi, a seven-year incremental growth fund
floated by the Ind Fund Management Ltd of Indian bank, at
a face value of Rs 20,000. The complainant alleged that
on the expiry of the scheme they were entitled to Rs
62,424 as per the minimum assured returns, but the
company paid only Rs 42,580 according to the net asset
value.
The company contended
that the complainants were rightly paid as the amount was
calculated on the basis of the repurchase rate that
prevailed in February, 1998, when the complainant had
applied.
The Forum bench
comprising its president, Mr RP Bajaj, and its members,
Mr HS Walia and Mrs Kamlesh Gupta, observed that it was a
common case of both parties that the seven-year-old
scheme came to an end in December, 1997. And the scheme
having come to an end, there was no question of
repurchase. Obviously, the repurchase could be one during
the currency of the scheme.
Holding the fund company
guilty of deficiency in service for having wrongly
calculated the amount payable to the complainant, it
directed them to pay the amount at 12 per cent interest
rate with effect from February 19.
Accident claim
Relying upon a decision
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II has held the
National Insurance Company guilty of wrongfully
repudiating the accident claim of an insured Maruti car.
The Maruti car,
belonging to the complainant, M/s Krishna Bus Service,
met with an accident on August 9, 1993. The claim was
laid with the National Insurance Company and it got the
damage assessed through the surveyor at Rs 37,000 but it
was not paid to the complainant despite repeated visits
and requests. Finally, through a letter dated March 30,
1996 the claim was repudiated on the ground that Mr Anil
Bhardwaj who was driving the vehicle at the time of the
accident was not having a valid driving licence at the
time of the accident.
The forum found that Mr
Anil Bhardwaj held the valid driving licence but its
validity had expired before the accident and he did not
get it renewed within the time given by Section 15 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This means that the driver did
not hold a valid driving licence prior to the accident
and he was not disqualified to hold a valid driving
licence.
Finding the insurance
company guilty of deficiency in service, the forum
allowed the complaint with costs of Rs 1200. They further
directed the insurance company to pay the assessed value
of Rs 37,000 along with interest at 12 per cent per annum
with effect from April 1, 1994.
|