RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

 Appeal No. 2145 of 1998

SBI Mutual Fund Trustee, SBI Capital Market

Ltd., 202, Maker Towers, E-Guffs Parede,

Bombay- 400005.                                          ….Appellant.

Versus

1- Anand Prakash Shukla s/o Sri Kamleshwar Shukla,

    R/o 3/19/89, Gaurapatti, Post and District,

    Faizabad-224001.

2- Registrar, M/s Datamatics Ltd. c/o M/s Datamatic

    Financial Services Ltd., Unit SBI M.F. Magnum

    Triple Scheme, Plot no.16, 17, MIDC, Part B,

    Crosslane, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093.

                                                                  ….Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri A.K. Tiwari, counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date  26.3.2018 

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1998, passed by the District Forum, Faizabad in complaint case no.223 of 1996.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had purchased SBI Mutual Fund Magnum Triple Plus Bond from the appellant/OP on 15.10.1991 for a sum of Rs.10,000.00 for himself and in the name of his wife. Under the bond's conditions the complainant or his wife could sell the bonds after three years and obtain the amount for the same from the OP. The contention of the complainant is that after 4 years he sent the bonds for repurchase to the OP and the OP on

(2)

20.2.1996 sent a sum of Rs.14,800.00 whereas they should have sent Rs.17,500.00 as during this period the amount of Rs.10,000.00 was payable as Rs.17,500.00 and therefore, the OP committed deficiency in service in not making balance amount of Rs.2,700.00. Since the complainant was not paid this amount hence, a complaint was filed in the Forum below wherein the OPs filed their WS submitting therein that as per the scheme, the amount which was payable after a lapse of 3 years was only an indicative one and hence, it could be reduced also and therefore, the OPs were not liable to make payment of the indicated amount. It was also indicated to the complainant that he should sell bonds after 7 years but he did not do therefore, the OPs had not committed any deficiency in service. Thereafter, the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order on 29.7.1998, as under:-

          "विपक्षीगण को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह इस आदेश के एक माह के अन्‍दर शिकायतकर्ता को रू02,700/- मय 18% प्रतिवर्ष की दर से ब्‍याज के साथ (20.2.1996 से देय होगा) अदा करें, और साथ में इस वाद के खर्चे के मद में रू0500/- अतिरिक्‍त रूप से अदा करें। शिकायत तदनुसार निस्‍तारित की जाती है।"

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that when the complainant had offered to sell his all the Magnum Bonds worth Rs.10,000.00 after 4 years then the Magnum bonds were repurchased by the appellant only for Rs.14,800.00 instead of Rs.17,500.00. As per the Magnum Rules the repurchase prices were only indicative and were liable to be changed. There was no assurance for the

(3)

guaranteed return will be given. Therefore, the ld. Forum has wrongly passed the impugned order as the appellant has not committed any deficiency in service, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the entire records. None appeared for the respondents.

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased SBI Mutual Fund Magnum Triple Plus Bond for a sum of Rs.10,000.00 on 15.10.1991 for himself and for his wife and that he sent the bonds for repurchase to the OPs after 4 years. It is also not disputed that the bonds had indicated minimum repurchase price after 4 years for a sum of Rs.1,000.00 as Rs.1,750.00, but disputed point according to the respondent/complainant is that when the bonds were sent for repurchase then instead of making payment of repurchase prices as indicated for Rs.1,750.00 for each Rs.1,000.00 Magnum bond, the complainant was paid only Rs.14,800.00 for Rs.10,000.00 Magnum Bonds. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,700.00 was not paid by the OP hence, they committed deficiency in service in that regard.

          So, now it is to be seen as to whether the OPs have committed  deficiency in service in not making payment of balance amount of Rs.2,700.00 as per the bond's condition. If so, its consequences.  

 In this regard, the ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that repurchase price of Rs.1,750.00 for each bond worth Rs.1,000.00 Magnum Bonds was only an indicative one and this could vary as per the conditions prevailing at

(4)

that time but no plausible explanation is coming forth from the side of the appellant as to why they have indicated that the repurchase price shall not be less than as mentioned as per repurchase price given in clause 14 of the offered document, which shows that for investment of Rs.1,000.00, repurchase price would be Rs.1,750.00. Therefore, there is no justification for the appellant not to make payment @ Rs.1,750.00 for the bonds worth Rs.10,000.00 sent by the complainant for repurchase after lapse of four years. It was clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP in this regard who were bound by the Magnum Triple Plus Bond where the repurchase price was indicated. Therefore, there was no justification for the appellant/OP to have made payment of Rs.14,800.00 instead of Rs.17,500.00 for the bonds worth Rs.10,000.00 of the complainants. Therefore, the OPs committed deficiency in service hence, the ld. Forum has passed a very reasonable order which needs no interference. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.  

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                       (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2