The order was passed here by UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I bench comprising president H.C. Modi and members Shashi Kanta and R.K. Behl.

In its order, the bench maintained that the unit holder had repurchased units and sent the certificates to UTI. Later too, it was held, the complainant M.S. Saini complied with all directions issued by the respondent company but the UTI proved deficient in services on account of delay in reimbursing proceeds to the complainant.

It was accordingly directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs 11,490, the amount involved. UTI was also asked to pay Rs 550 as costs to the consumer.

In his complaint, Saini stated that he was holder of 100 units of face value of Rs 10. The said units became due for repurchase on March 31, 1995.

Complainant M.S. Saini opted for repurchase and sent unit certificates to UTI. He alleged that the UTI sent a letter to him stating that his signatures were not tallying. In reply, the complainant sent attested signatures to the respondents. Even after that he did not receive repurchase proceeds of the units.

The respondent company, in its reply, had maintained that the complainant never informed him about non receipt of repurchase proceeds.

Local company to return entire price of computer
A local computer selling company, Pertech Computers Limited, has been told by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I to return the amount deposited by the complainant for purchase of a computer which was never delivered to him despite assurances.

The bench comprising president H.C. Modi and members Shashi Kanta and R.K. Behl directed the respondent company to pay back Rs 18,895 to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

The complainant Ashok Aggarwal stated in his complaint that for purchasing a computer he had taken a loan of Rs 18,895 from a bank and had sent a demand draft to the respondent company which assured delivery of the computer within eight weeks.

The complainant, however, alleged that the delivery was never made despite his sending several reminders to the company.

During the course of proceedings, the evidence shown by the complainant went unchallenged by the opposite parties. On that account, therefore, the Forum maintained: "It was their moral obligation to deliver the same. So there is deficiency in services". The bench also awarded Rs 1,500 as compensation to the complainant on account of harassment and inconvenience caused.