9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, jointly and severally. 2. The facts lie in very narrow compass and may be noticed. The complainant was an investor under the Units Scheme-64 of the Unit Trust of India (UTI). The complainant was eligible to apply for another scheme announced by UTI called UGS-2000. The opposite party No. 2 at the relevant time was UTI s chief representative of Solapur District. The complainant s ease is that he has submitted 5 applications to UTI for purchase of 1,000 units of Rs. 10 each under UGS-2000 and paid the application money of Rs. 10,000, by way of Cheque No. 15080 dated 23-10-1990 for Rs. 8,000 drawn on Solapur Merchant Co-operative Bank, Solapur in favour of Shri S.G. Godse, opposite party No. 2 and also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in UGS-2000 of the UTI, the same was returned unpaid by the bankers with the remark Refer to Drawer . Accordingly, the applications deposited by the second opposite party including those of the complainant were duly cancelled by the UTI as the amounts were not received. 4. The District Forum, Solapur came to the conclusion that Shri Godse had accepted a cheque of Rs. 8,000 and the amount of Rs. 2,000 from the complainant for UGS-2000 on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and accordingly issued the receipts to the complainant but the opposite party No. 1 is delaying the matter and avoiding the responsibility in this case. It was found that Shri Godse acted as agent of UTI and accepted cheque and cash for Unit Trust of India an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Unit Trust of India has not authorised its agents to collect cash, nor are the investors permitted to draw cheques in the names of the agents for remitting to UTI. The Agents/Chief Representatives of the Trust are only authorised to collect applications along with cheques/demand drafts payable to the UTI. The finding of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission that Shri S.G. Godse was the authorised Agent and, therefore, the UTI is responsible for the acts of omission and commission committed by the agent of the UTI is not supported by the material on record. The authority that is conferred on the agent or chief representative was only to collect applications from the investors along with cheques/drafts made payable to " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
