Unit Trust of India    .... Petitioner
Vs
Ram Kishan Chawla .... Respondent

C.L.Chaudhry, J. Member:

          This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, dated 31-5-95 dismissing the appeal filed by the Unit Trust of India as time barred.

The facts of this case are that on 14-11-92 the complainant applied for purchase of 1000 units of Unit Trust of India, Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, in 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 1000 units of Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme dated 14-11-92 was issued to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Para No.1 of application, the date of maturity of the unit should have been 20-11-2007 as the date of birth of the Complainant's minor daughter was 20-11-1987. But in the certificate of the unit issued by the UTI, the date of maturity was mentioned as 14-11-2008. On receipt of the certificate, the mistake regarding the date of maturity and another mistake regarding incentive amount was noted; and the Petitioner requested the agent of the UTI to get the mistake rectified regarding the date of maturity. But without success. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, for appropriate directions to the UTI to correct the date of maturity from 14-11-2008 to 20-11-2007.

Unfortunately, no written version was filed by the UTI before the District Forum. After persuing the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the maturity amount would become payable after completion of 20 years of age of the female from her date of birth. The complainant's daughter will complete 20 years of age on 20-11-2007 and the maturity date would fall on 20-11-2007.

The UTI filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh. Unfortunately, none of them appeared on behalf of the UTI before the State Commission on 31-5-1995 when the appeal was called for hearing. The State Commission dismissed the appeal as time barred. That is how the UTI has invoked the revisional power of this Commission by filing this revision petition.

It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner formulated 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 grow21 times after 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.

If it is above 4 to 5 years, the 'lock in period' will be 16 years.

The scheme "Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme" was framed by the UTI in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 21 of the Act, 1963. The said scheme was published in the Gazette of India dated April 17, 1993. When the scheme was originally formulated, a brochure was issued in October, 1992 for guidance and information of the prospective investors. In the brochure the term 'MATURITY ON COMPLETION OF 20 YEARS AGE' was inserted. On the mistake coming to notice, another brochure was immediately issued and the term was substituted by the words "MATURITY ON COMPLETION OF 'LOCK-IN PERIOD'''. Between the period of issuance of first brochure and the second brochure, some of the investors happened to invest certain amounts in the scheme. The Respondent was of one such investors who had purchased 1000 units of Rs. 10/- each from this scheme. It was clear that the scheme was Applicable only in respect of the girl child up to the age of 5 years and the amount payable was on attaining the age of 20 years by the girl child and was to vary depending upon the 'Lock in period'. In the case of the Respondent, the date of birth of the concerned child was 20-11-1987. The application for purchase of the above number of units was made on 14-11-1992 and was accepted on the same day. As such the concerned child would have completed the age of 20 years on 20-11-2007 as enunciated in the scheme, the age of the girl child was between 4 to 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 Civil Revision No. 530/94 decided on 10-11-95 in the case of Unit Trust of India Vs. Kumari Gauthami & Anr.
 

On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that  it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the UTI as UTI revised its brochure by adding a clause 'lock in period' to the deteriment of the complainant.

We have consider the relevant contentions of both the parties. At the outset, we may notice that the point in issue is squarely covered by a decision of this Commission delivered in Civil Revision No.530 of 1994 decided on 10-11-95 wherein similar circumstances it was held as under.

"Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 was firmed by the UTI in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 21 of the Act, 1963. The said scheme was published in the Gazette of India dated April 17, 1993. Thus this scheme was framed by the UTI under the powers given under a Statute. It is settled principle that the  principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable against a statue. If there is any agreement of contract between the parties which is against the statutory provisions, that agreement is not enforceable".

In view of the decision of this Commission rendered in the case of Unit Trust of India Vs. Kumari Gauthami & Anr., we allow this petition and set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.