Haryana

Sonipat

CC/134/2015

BHARTI D/O NAFE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE MANAGER SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN BHARDWAJ

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.134 of 2015

                                Instituted on:21.04.2015

                                Date of order:21.09.2015

 

Bharti daughter of Nafe Singh, r/o Suri Petrol Pump Wali Gali, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.The Manager, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Ahmedabad(Guraj)

2.Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Reg. Office Block No.12, New Sachivalya Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat.

3.Agent Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Indra Colony, Sonepat.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Krishan Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Amit Verma, Adv. for respondents no.1 and 2.

           Respondent no.3 Given-up.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her father had purchased a bond Reg. no.16689, certificate no.366190 on 7.1.1995 of respondent office i.e. Aapki Investment in the name of the complainant and an amount of Rs.3600/- was deposited by him through receipt serial no.8293161.  The face value of the bond certificate was assessed Rs.1,11,000/- at the maturity time i.e. 11.1.2014.  The respondents issued a cheque no.568924 dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the complainant. Due to wrong mentioning of account number of the complainant, she returned the cheque to the respondents.  The respondents issued another cheque no.569969 dated 31.1.2015 for Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,11,000/-.   The complainant has requested the respondent no.3 to make the remaining payment of Rs.61000/-, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum  and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have filed their separate reply, whereas respondent no.3 was given up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on  25.8.2015.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their reply has submitted that they had come out with a public issue of secured redeemable non tax exempt deep discount bonds of the face value of Rs.1,11,000/- each to be issued at a discounted price of Rs.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment.  In this regard, they had issued a prospectus dated 29.9.1993. In the larger public interest, it became necessary to redeem  the bonds before the maturity date and thereby save additional interest burden for the period 2009 to 2014.  The Govt. of Gujarat in public interest passed the Act which was published on 29.3.2008 in Gujarat Govt. Gazette.  The said Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for bonds by providing an option to the respondents no.1 and 2 to redeem the bonds earlier.  The Board of Directors of the respondents no.1 and 2 had at their meeting held on 3.11.2008 in terms of the said Act, decided to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date of such redemption as 10.1.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond.  The respondents no.1 and 2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders explaining them about the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on 10.1.2009.  They also published the contents of notice in Times of India, all India Editions including Delhi-Chandigarh edition on 5.11.2008.  The complainant has rightly been paid Rs.50,000/- by the respondents instead of Rs.1,11,000/-, because there was no entitlement of the complainant to get Rs.1,11,000/-.  She is also not entitled to get any relief by way of present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  We very minutely and carefully have perused the written arguments filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 in support of their case.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly and illegally made the payment of Rs.50,000/-, whereas she was entitled to get total Rs.1,11,000/-. So, the respondents no.1 and 2 be directed to make the payment of balance sum of Rs.61,000/-.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that they had come out with a public issue of secured redeemable non tax exempt deep discount bonds of the face value of Rs.1,11,000/- each to be issued at a discounted price of Rs.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment.  In this regard, they had issued a prospectus dated 29.9.1993. In the larger public interest, it became necessary to redeem  the bonds before the maturity date and thereby save additional interest burden for the period 2009 to 2014.  The Govt. of Gujarat in public interest passed the Act which was published on 29.3.2008 in Gujarat Govt. Gazette.  The said Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for bonds by providing an option to the respondents no.1 and 2 to redeem the bonds earlier.  The Board of Directors of the respondents no.1 and 2 had at their meeting held on 3.11.2008 in terms of the said Act, decided to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date of such redemption as 10.1.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond.  The respondents no.1 and 2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders explaining them about the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on 10.1.2009.  They also published the contents of notice in Times of India, all India Editions including Delhi-Chandigarh edition on 5.11.2008.  The complainant has rightly been paid Rs.50,000/- by the respondents instead of Rs.1,11,000/-, because there was no entitlement of the complainant to get Rs.1,11,000/-.  She is also not entitled to get any relief by way of present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In support of the above contentions, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have relied upon the case law titled as Alchemist Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim 2007(11) Supreme Court Cases page 335, Unit Trust of India Vs. Amitabh Goel, 2009(III) CPJ page 48,  Chatur Behari Vs. IDBI Bank, IV (2013) CPJ 582 (NC), Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd., date of order 26.8.2003 passed in Revision petition no.147of 2000 by the Hon’ble National Commission,  Agam Aggarwal Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. complaint no.1409 of 2009 date of decision 25.03.2010 by the District Consumer Forum-I,UT, Chandigarh  alongwith two other complaints bearing no.1410 of 2009 Raashi Ahuwalia Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada and complaint no.1411 of 2009 Shaina Khanna Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam.

          After hearing both the parties and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file and also going through the above cited law by the ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, we are of the view that there is a force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents and the complainant herself is liable for her own acts and deeds as the complainant herself has not approached to the respondents for getting the bonds redeemed as per their Act which was passed by the Govt. of Gujarat in public interest and which was published on 29.3.2008 in Gujarat Govt. Gazette.  The said Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for bonds by providing an option to the respondents no.1 and 2 to redeem the bonds earlier.  But this opportunity was not availed by the complainant and thus, for the lapses on the part of the complainant herself, the respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be held deficient in any manner.  The complainant in this way has miserably failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  In our view, the respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly made the payment of Rs.50,000/-, for which, the complainant was legally entitled to and the complainant is nowhere entitled to get any other amount what to speak of Rs.61000/- from the respondents no.1 and 2.  Thus, no directions of any kind can be given to the respondents.  The present complaint, thus, fails and we hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:21.09.2015