Kumar had filed a complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 1994. The complaint stated that he was a joint registered holder of 500 UTI certificates along with his brother. The two offered these to the UTI on December 30, 1992, for the re-purchase of certificates under the Income Unit Scheme of 1987.

Despite offering duplicate certificates, which were issued to Kumar only a year later, the UTI reportedly did not pay the re-purchase price (Rs 10,400) to him. The complaint added that the company did not offer any cogent reason for the non-payment of this amount. Following this, Kumar asked for a compensation of Rs 12,000 (including the interest) in his petition against UTI.

In its reply, UTI claimed that it had paid the amount to Kumar. The company exhibited records showing that a cheque, dated January 16, 1993, had been issued to the complainant.

Kumar, however, submitted a certificate from his bank showing that credit amounting to Rs 10,400 had not been deposited in his account since the date mentioned by UTI.

The court ruled: ``We accordingly believe that the stand of the complainant that the said cheque of the said amount was not received by him.'' It also stated that since UTI records showed that the amount had been paid to the complainant, the money had probably been received by a third person and ``it would be unfair to burden the company to also pay the interest to the complainant on the amount.''