BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.06 of 2015

Date of Instt. 08.01.2015

Date of Decision :13.05.2015

Balwinder Kumar aged about 50 years son of Raghu Nath R/o H.No.575, Village and Post Office Dakoha, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, having its registered office at Block No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010, Gujarat, India through its Managing Director.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Anand Pandit Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.SK Pathak Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India and is a permanent resident of above said address. The opposite party induced the complainant to buy the bonds of the opposite party having the issue price of Rs.3600/- and having the face value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The complainant got attracted to the inducement of the opposite party and purchased the bonds of the opposite party as stated above. The opposite party in return issued the bond certificate in the form of promissory note dated 7.1.1995 under the signatures of the then Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party. It has been stated in the bond dated 7.1.1995 that the opposite party promise to pay or order on 11.1.2014, the sum of Rs.1,11,000/- being the face value of the bond herein contained for the value received by the opposite party. After the date of maturity of the face value of the bond, the complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- to which the complainant is legally entitled to receive. The opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and kept on lingering the matter for the reasons best known to the opposite party. After repeated requests, the opposite party disbursed cheque bearing No.550960 dated 28.2.2014 for amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is mentioned that the opposite party has only disbursed the part payment of the face value, as the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.1,11,000/- in total as per the bond dated 7.1.1995. The complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the remaining amount of Rs.61,000/- to the complainant but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and kept on lingering the matter for the reasons best known to the opposite party and did not disburse the remaining amount of Rs.61,000/-. The bond agreement was executed between the parties to the lis at Jalandhar and money at the time of execution of the bond agreement was paid to the opposite party at Jalandhar and the cheque of Rs.50,000/- was received by the complainant at Jalandhar only and the refusal to disburse the remaining amount of face value was done at Jalandhar only, as such, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to disburse the balance amount alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the Sardar Sarovar is an Inter-State, multi-purpose joint venture of four States viz Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan to build a terminal dam on the river Narmada alongwith distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation to farmers of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, drinking water in scarcity prone areas of Gujarat and power to Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. With a view to implement the said public interest project speedily, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited was incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, as a wholly owned company of the Government of Gujarat. With a view to, inter-alia, part finance the Sardar Sarovar Project, the opposite party had, inter-alia, come out with a public issue of Secured Redeemable Non Tax Exempt Deep Discount Bonds(hereinafter referred to as the 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, the opposite party had issued a prospectus dated September 29, 1993. The opposite party had, pursuant to the prospectus, issued letters of allotment to the bond holders, which were to be exchanged with bond certificates on receiving intimation from the opposite party. The Sardar Sarovar Project is still not fully complete. The rate of interest under the bonds which was in excess of 18% was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions. Such high rate of interest is unsustainable for any project, much less, a mega social infrastructure project being undertaken by the opposite party. Such high rate of interest entails substantial liability and outflow of funds, which could otherwise be utilized by the opposite party in relation to the Sardar Sarovar Project. In view of these, it was felt necessary, in the larger public interest, to redeem the bonds before the maturity date and thereby save additional interest burden for the period 2009 to 2014. The Government of Gujarat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), which was published on 29.3.2008 in the Gujarat Government Gazette. The said Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for bonds by providing an option to the opposite party to redeem the bonds earlier, on such date and with such deemed face value as the opposite party may determine, by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in the said Act. The board of directors of the opposite party 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 for such redemption as 10.1.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond. The opposite party had, through its Registered and Transfer Agent, MCS Limited, sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter-alia, explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on 10.1.2009. In addition to the aforesaid, the opposite party had published the contents of notice, inter-alia, in Times of India, all India editions, on 5.11.2008. The aforesaid public notice and notice to the individual bond holders are also put on the website of the opposite party being www.sardarsarvoardam.org. Such notice was sent to the complainant at his registered address available with the opposite party being, House No.575 Village & Post Dakoha, Jalandhar-144023(Punjab) under Postal Certificate. Clause 8 of the said notice provides that no interest on the redemption amount will accrue after 10.1.2009. The complainant was holding one bond bearing folio No.442041 and certificate No.450370. Despite the above notices, the complainant did not approach, either MCS Limited or the opposite party for a long period for claiming the redemption amount as on 1.10.2009 after following the procedure for redemption as mentioned in the notices referred to hereinabove and chose to wait till 2014, for the reasons best known to him. The complainant admittedly approached the opposite party in February 2014, for redemption of his bond. Since the board of directors of the opposite party 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 for such redemption as 10.1.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond, the complainant was entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- for one bond held by him. The opposite party immediately upon receipt of the duly discharged bond certificate for redemption alongwith necessary documents, paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant vide warrant No.320937 bearing MICR No.545208 dated 15.1.2014. However, the complainant had vide its letter dated 12.3.2014 returned the aforesaid warrant on the ground that the same bears the wrong name of the bank i.e HDFC Bank instead of State Bank of India. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had mentioned the name of HDFC Bank in the aforesaid warrant as per the bank account details given by the complainant in terms of his request for redemption, which was received by MCS Limited on 6.2.2014, had issued a fresh warrant bearing No.320937, MICR No.550960 dated 28.2.2014 for Rs.50,000/-. The complainant had received the said amount without any protest. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- has been credited into the account of the complainant bearing No.10992581241 held with State Bank of India on 3.4.2014. After receiving and appropriating the amount of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant falsely claimed further amount of Rs.61,000/-, which is clearly an afterthought. The complainant is, therefore, estopped from raising any other claim in respect of the bond and the present complaint is clearly an afterthought. The complainant is not entitled to any other claim in respect of the bond, more particularly, the claim raised by the complainant in the present complaint. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1A/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/A to Ex.OP/J and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party.

6. It is not disputed that complainant had purchased a Deep Discount Bond Ex.C1 of the face value of Rs.3600/- on 7.1.1995 and it was having maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/- payable in the year 2014. However, in the year 2008 Gujarat Assembly passed an Act No.12 of 2008 i.e Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008. Ex.OP/B is copy of the said Act. Under the Act, opposite party was empowered to redeem the bonds in question earlier on such date and with such deemed face value as company may determine by payment of the amount so determined. The Act also provided that company shall publish the date and deemed face value in the newspaper in English and Gujarati in the area having wide circulation. In pursuance to the said Act, the opposite party passed resolution, copy of which is Ex.OP/C on record to redeem the above said bond earlier and determined the date for such redemption as 10.1.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond. Counsel for the complainant contended that the bond issued by the opposite party was bilateral agreement and the above said Act could not alter bilateral agreement between the parties and opposite party is bound to pay the maturity value mentioned in the bond. We have carefully considered this contention advanced by learned counsel for the complainant but unable to agree with him. This Forum in its summary jurisdiction can not decide the validity of the above said Act vide which the opposite party was given an authority to redeem the bond at an earlier date. So, under the above said Act, the opposite party was competent to redeem the bonds at an earlier date. Before redeeming the bond, the opposite party gave public notice in newspaper i.e Time of India, New Delhi and Chandigarh edition in issue date 5.11.2008. Ex.OP/G is copy of said notice. Notice was also issued to the individual bond holder. Ex.OP/F is record in respect of the same and the name of the complainant find mentioned at serial No.39957. So the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that no notice was issued to the complainant regarding redemption of bond at an earlier date is without any merit. Moreover, in our opinion, the complainant can not be termed as consumer. He purchased the Deep Discount Bond to get higher rate of interest and it tentamounts to commercial purpose. The bond was purchased for Rs.3600/- and the amount payable on the date of maturity was Rs.1,11,000/- and the maturity period was 20 years. So obviously, the complainant purchased the Deep Discount Bond to earn profit which falls within the meaning of commercial purpose. Moreover, even if, the complainant is consider to be consumer, the opposite party redeemed the bond issued by it at an earlier date in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by the Act of Gujarat legislature.

7. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that complainant has failed to proved any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.05.2015 Member Member President