Between:

Sri Govinda Rao Nellore, S/o late Polipalli,

Advocate’s registered clerk, Hindu, 40 years,

21-41-163, Bit No.4, Phool Bagh Road,

Yessa Narayana Metta, Vizianagaram.       

                                                                                                 ……Complainant

And

1.M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited,

   Rep.,by its Managing Director,

   Regd.Office: Block No.12, 1^st Floor,

   New Sachivalaya Complex,

   Gandhi Nagar – 382 010 (Gujarat).

2. MCS Limited rep.,by its Managing Director

    Unit: Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited

    101, Shatdal Complex, 1^st Floor, Opp: Bata Show Room

    Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009.

                                                                                      ……Opposite parties

          This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Ramamohana Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri S.Narasimhulu, Advocate for O.P.1, O.P.2 called absent and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

SRI T. SRIRAMA MURTHY,PRESIDENT

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.65,640/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., from 11-1-2014 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards costs on the following averments:

          The 1^st O.P has given vide publicity in print media and other media stating that they have proposed to issue bond certificates in the form of promissory notes deep discount bond for face value of Rs.3,600/- and maturity value is Rs.1,11,000/-.  The complainant with a fond hope that in the old age it would benefit him and his family members in case money is invested in the bonds has paid face value for one bond at Vizianagaram in the form of D.D in favour of 1^st O.P.   After completion of the bond period the complainant made an endorsement on the back side of the bond and surrendered the same along with a letter dt.20-1-2014 and requested the 1^st O.P to pay the maturity amount of the bond @ Rs.1,11,000/-.  Inspite of the receipt of the said notice by the 1^st O.P they did not respond to the same.  The 2^nd O.P issued a part of redemption warrant dt.15-2-2014 in favour of complainant for Rs.46,400/- on each bond.  When the complainant contacted the 2^nd O.P and enquired as to why the total maturity amount was not paid their men informed him that they would pay the balance amount within one week.  Since the complainant did not receive the balance maturity amount he got issued a notice dt.22-8-2014 to the O.Ps calling upon them to pay the balance amount but of no avail.  As the men of O.Ps were in dereliction of duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part the complainant filed the complaint seeking the above said reliefs. 

          The 1^st O.P filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that the Consumer Forum, Vizianagaram is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and as the men of O.Ps are not in dereliction of duties and as there is no deficiency in service on their part the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

          It is averred that the Sardar Sarovar Project is an Inter State, multi-purpose joint venture of four states and to build a terminal dam on the river Narmada along with water distribution and hydro-electric facilities and with a view to implement the said public interest project speedily, the O.P.1 was incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act’1956.  The 1^st OP came with the public issue of Secured Redeemable Non Tax Exempt Deep Discount Bonds of the maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/- each to be issued at a discounted price of Rs.3,600 per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment.  The O.P.1 had issued a prospectus dt.29-9-1993 and pursuant to the prospectus it issued the letters of allotment to the bond holders which are to be exchanged with bond certificates on receiving intimation from the O.P.1.  It is averred that Sardar Sarovar Project is still not completed and as the rate of interest under the bonds which was excess of 18% was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions.  The said high rate of interest entails substantial liability and outflow of funds which could be otherwise utilized by O.P.1 in relation to the said project.  It is averred that in the larger public interest it was felt necessary to redeem the bonds before the maturity date and thereby save additional interest burden for the period 2009-2014 the government of Gujarat passed a Sardar sarovar Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act 2008 which was published on March, 2008 in the Gujarat Government Gazettee and the said Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for bonds by providing an option to the O.P.1 to redeem the bonds earlier on such date and such deemed face value as the O.P.1 may determine, by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in the said Act. 

The Board of Directors of the O.P.1 had at their meeting held on             3-11-2008 decided to redeem the bonds earlier in terms of the said Act and determined the date for such redemption as January 10, 2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond.  The O.P.1 had through its Registrar and Transfer Agent, MCS Limited and the O.P.2 herein, sent individual notices to all the bond holders explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on January 10, 2009.  The O.P.1 had published the contents of notice in times of India Editions on March, 2008.  It is averred that the aforesaid public notice and notice to the individual bond holders were also put on the website of the O.P.1.  It is averred that a notice was sent to the complainant at his registered address available with O.P.1 under postal Certificate and as per clause 8 of the said notice no interest on the redemption amount will accrue after 10^th January, 2009.  It is averred that the complainant was holding one bond and despite the above said notice the complainant did not approach the O.Ps for long time for redemption of the bond.  

It is averred that the complainant approached the O.P in the month of  January, 2014 for redemption of his bond and as the complainant was entitled  to get the redemption amount of Rs.46,400/- for one bond held by him, the 1^st O.P paid the said amount after deducting the TDS at the applicable rates for one bond on 15-2-2014 and the complainant has received the said amount without any protest.  It is averred that the complainant having received the redemption amount got issued notice dt.22-8-2014 claiming further amount which is not only after-thought, but also illegal  and not maintainable in law. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and as the complaint merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed.   

          In furtherance of complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of complainant is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.4 are marked.   On behalf of O.P the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.8.  Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:-       Before adverting to the merits of case we would like to mention the admitted facts.  It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a bond having the face value of Rs.3,600/- and its maturity period is 20 years and after maturity the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,000/- towards the bond.  Ex.A.1 is the Xerox copies of deep discount bond issued in favour of complainant.  And as seen from its contents the complainant paid Rs.3,600/- for a bond and its maturity value is Rs.1,11,000/- per bond.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant submitted a letter to O.P.1 on 20-1-2014 along with the bond and requested to pay the maturity value of the said bonds and in pursuance of said claim the respondent paid a sum of Rs.46,400/- to the complainant under the said bond stating that the Board of Directors of 1^st O.P decided to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date for such redemption to be on 10-1-2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond, in pursuance of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (conferment of power to redeem bonds Act, 2008).  Ex.B.2 is the copy of above said Act.  Ex.B.3 is the copy of Board resolution dt.3-11-2008 passed by the Board of Directors of O.P.1.  Ex.B.4 is the copy of public notice dated November 5, 2008 downloaded from the web site of O.P.1    and Ex.A.5 is the copy of notice dated 5-11-2008 sent to individual bond holders and Ex.A.6 is the copy of postal proof in respect of notice sent to the complainant under postal certificate. 

As we have already stated supra in pursuance of the above said Act, the Board of Directors of O.P.1 passed a resolution enabling O.P.1 to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date for such redemption as 10-1-2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond.  As per O.Ps, public notice was given and individual notices were sent to the bond holders about the Act as well as the resolution passed by the Board enabling the 1^st O.P to redeem the bonds earlier.  The complainant did not make any whisper in his complaint about the Act passed by Gujarat Government and about the resolution passed by Board of Directors of O.P as well as about any receipt of notice sent by the O.Ps in this regard.  Since an Act was passed by the Government of Gujarat enabling the Board of Directors of 1^st O.P to redeem the bonds earlier and as the 1^st O.P decided to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date for such redemption as January 10, 2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,000/- towards the maturity amount of the bond.  It is not the case of complainant that the Act passed by Gujarat Government is null and void and the Board of Directors of 1^st O.P had no right to pass the resolution enabling the 1^st O.P to redeem the bonds earlier i.e., on or before January 10, 2009.

          As seen from Ex.B.5 a copy of notice was sent to the individual bond holders and as per Ex.B.6 a copy of notice was sent to the complainant as evident from postal certificate.  The complainant did not dispute about the truth or otherwise of above said Exhibits.   Once a notice is sent to the correct address of a party a presumption would arise that the said notice was served on him and he is aware of the contents of the said notice.    Since the Act passed by the Gujarat Government was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette and when a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of 1^st O.P and was published in Times of India, All India Editions and was sent to the bond holders, a presumption would arise that the complainant is aware of the Board resolution as well as the Act Passed by Gujarat Government.  Under such circumstances as the complainant did not protest about the validity of the Act and the Board resolution, the same are binding on him.  As the Board has determined the date for redemption of the bonds as January’2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/-  it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,000/- to be maturity value of the bond.  For the reasons best known the complainant did not submit the bond to the 1^st O.P for redemption after receiving Ex.A.5  notice.  In normal circumstances when the complainant is aggrieved by the act of any person, he has to approach the appropriate Forum or Court immediately after he knows about the said act.  As per OPs the redemption date is 10-1-2009 and under Ex.B.5 he was intimated about the date of redemption and if he had any grievance against the resolution passed by the Board he should have filed the complaint within 2 years from the date of issuance of Ex.B.5 notice but he did not do so.  The present complaint is filed in the year 2014 which is beyond 2 years from the date of cause of action that arose in the year 2009.  As per complainant he sent a letter to the 1^st O.P along with the bonds on 20-1-2014 with a request to pay the maturity value of Ex.A.1 bonds and after receiving the said notice the O.P.1 settled the claim and paid a sum of Rs.46,400/- under the bond and as the balance maturity amount was not given he approached this Forum to get his grievances redressed.  As we have already stated supra in pursuance of Act passed by Gujarat Government and a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of O.P.1 the redemption date was determined as January 10, 2009 with deemed value of Rs.50,000/-.  By keeping the above said Act and Board resolution in view the 1^st O.P paid a sum of Rs.46,400/- after deducting TDS at the applicable rate on the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/-.  Since the O.P.1 has acted immediately in making payment of redemption amount after receiving the notice as well as the bond it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

          As seen from the material placed on record it is manifest that the complainant has received Rs.46,400/- under the bond towards the maturity value of the said bond without protest.  Hence, he cannot contend that there is consumer and service provider relationship in between them. 

In a decision in 1(2013) CPJ 440 (NC) : Ankur Surana Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & others Wherein it is held : unless the petitioner establishes that he accepted the amount under undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud played by Insurance Company it shall be treated that insurance claim stood settled.

As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra once the complainant receives the money sent by the O.P without any protest it shall be treated that the claims stood settled. 

Coming to case on hand as the complainant received a sum of Rs.46,400/- towards the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- bond  without any protest his relationship with the O.Ps as consumer and service provider has ceased, and it is to be held that towards full satisfaction only the complainant has received the above said sum from the O.Ps.

The O.Ps have taken a plea that the office of O.P.1 is located at Gandhi Nagar and the Office of O.P.2 is located at Ahmadabad and as the O.Ps are not having their offices or branches within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum the complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground of Jurisdiction alone.  As seen from the material placed on record it is manifest that the office of 1^st O.P situates at Gandhi Nagar and office of O.P2 situates at Ahmadabad.  It is not the case of complainant that the Branch Office of above said O.Ps are situated within the Jurisdiction of this Forum.

As per Sec.11 (2) (a) of Consumer Protection Act – A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the O.P or O.Ps resides and where the cause of action wholly or in part arise.

Coming to case on hand the O.Ps are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Forum and no cause of action did arise within its jurisdiction.  It is well settled that Sec.11 (2) (a) does not permit the case to be entertained by the Consumer Forum at Vizianagaram as the O.Ps have no Branch Offices here. 
Even if payments are made through a Bank situated within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum at Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that a part of cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of this Forum.

Hence in the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or dereliction of duty on the part of O.Ps and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  10^th  day of June, 2015.

Member                                                           President.

C.C. 75 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of Deep Discount Bonds  dt.7-1-1995
2. Ex.A.2 O/c of Regd.Lawyer’s notice 22-8-2014
3. Ex.A.3 Acknowledgements
4. Ex.A.4 Reply from 1^st O.P.

For O.P:-   

1. Ex.B.1 copy of Prospectus by O.P.No.1 dt.29-9-1993
2. Ex.B.2 Copy of Sardar Sarovar Nigam Ltd.,(conferment of power to Redeem bonds) Act, 2008 dt.29-3-2008
3. Ex.B.3 copy of Board Resolution dt.3-11-2008
4. Ex.B.4 Copy of News paper edition in Times of India, Hyd., dt.5-11-2008
5. Ex.B.5 Copy of public notice dt.3-11-2008
6. Ex.B.6 copy of notice sent to the individual Bond Holders from Website
7. Ex.B.7 Copy of dispatch proof under Postal Certificate dt.19-11-2009.
8. Ex.B.8 copy of Authority letter dt.12-1-2015.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 President.