9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in O.P. No. 533 of 1998 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur. In O.P. No. 222 of 1998 the complainant joined on behalf of his two grand-children in the Children s Gift Growth Fund, 1986 (CGGF 86), as per the said scheme as stated in Ext. A1 brochure on the child on attaining 21 years of age, he would be eligible for a minimum of Rs. 1 lakh with recurring bonus and dividend. The grievance was that while he was regularly making the contribution, he sent a cheque towards the contribution alongwith Ext. A2 letter but the cheque was returned with a letter intimating that the said scheme has been stopped. The complainant alleged that the said act of the opposite party would amount to deficiency of service, consequently he wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contribution was stopped with effect from the date of notification benefit accruing on the remitted units would accrue. The benefits are noted in clauses ( A ) and ( B ) of the Children Gift Growth Fund and they maintained that being the guarantee benefit no injury could be caused to the child on whose behalf the contributions were made. Therefore, it was maintained by them that the complaint is not maintainable. 2. In O.P. No. 222 of 1998 the complainant had produced Exts. A1 to A3 and gave evidence as P.W. 1. In the said O.P. the District Forum made a direction to refund the amount collected under Ext. A3 series along with 15 per cent interest with quarterly rest from the date of remittance till realisation, Rs. 2,000 was awarded as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )( g ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts are not in dispute, when the respective guardians joined the scheme and while contributions were being made on their offering the purchase units the same was not accepted and returned also is admitted. The justification sought to be offered by the appellant/opposite party is that as per clause ( 33 ) of the Scheme since the opposite party is conferred with the right to terminate the scheme at any time without assigning any reason by giving a notice of not less than two weeks in one of the leading English dailies and they having published the resolve in the Financial Express dated 20-10-1997 the respective complainants could not have any grievance. Clause ( 33 ) of the Scheme published i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust of India v. Kumari Gauthami [1996] CPJ 203 (NC), where the Scheme has been framed under the powers given by the statute the principle of promissory estoppel would not apply. 6. In this connection it will be relevant to note that the Ext. A1 in O.P. No. 222 of 1998 gives the benefits to which the child would be entitled and clauses ( A ) and ( B ) thereof assure dividend year after year and also bonus every three years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, in spite of the suspension of the scheme the aforesaid benefit would recurrently accrue to the child and when it matures on attaining the age of 21 by the child, the child would be eligible to get the amount along with the aforesaid bonus as well as dividen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
