1997 (5) TMI 370 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as time-barred.
2. Discrepancy in the maturity date of the investment scheme.
3. Application of promissory estoppel against a statutory scheme.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenged the State Commission's dismissal of an appeal by Unit Trust of India (UTI) as time-barred. The complaint arose from a discrepancy in the maturity date of an investment scheme for a minor female child. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, determining the maturity date based on the child's age. However, the UTI failed to file a written version, leading to the State Commission's dismissal of the appeal.

2. The UTI contended that the scheme was designed for the benefit of girl children, with the maturity amount dependent on the lock-in period. The scheme specified varying lock-in periods based on the child's age, with the minimum period being 16 years. The UTI framed the 'Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme' under statutory powers, and a revised brochure clarified the maturity terms. The respondent investor sought to reduce the lock-in period, but the District Forum's decision was deemed erroneous.

3. The respondent argued that the UTI's revision to the brochure constituted a deficiency in service, affecting the complainant adversely. Citing a previous judgment by the Commission, it was established that the principle of promissory estoppel does not apply against a statutory scheme. Consequently, the Commission allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower forum's orders and dismissing the complaint. No costs were awarded in the matter.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in financial schemes, emphasizing that agreements contrary to statutory frameworks are unenforceable. The decision serves as a precedent for cases involving discrepancies in investment schemes governed by statutory regulations.