DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 94/2015

1. Shri Rajender Singh

2. Smt. Shakuntla

W/o Shri Rajender Singh

Both R/o 17-J-Extn IIIrd Floor,         

Street No. 4, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092                                                          ….Complainants

Versus

1. M.A.S.

A B -4,

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029.

2. The Managing Director

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.

Block No.-12, New Sachivalaya Complex,

Gandhi Nagar – 382010, Gujrat

3. MCS Limited

(Unit : Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.)

101, Shatdal Complex, 1^st Floor, Opp.

Bata Showroom Ashram Road,

Ahmedabad-380009.                               ….Opposite Parties

                                                 Date of Institution       : 09.04.2015        Date of Order            : 16.01.2019   

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Facts of the complaint in nutshell are:-

1. Complainants had purchased a Deep Discount Bond at discounted price of Rs.3,600/- from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (OP-2) which is a pubic limited company. The bond certificate was issued to the complainants on 07.01.1995 having a face value of Rs.1,11,000/-. After the date of maturity the complainants asked for the maturity amount of the said bond from the OPs and to their utter shock received Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,11,000/-. It is averred that the complainant No.1 accepted the said amount of Rs.50,000/- thinking the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- will be sanctioned in the name of his wife as the said bond was issued jointly in the name of both of the complainants.
2. It is next averred that the complainants tried to contact the OPs regarding the discrepancy in the maturity amount but to no avail, hence the present complaint with the prayer to direct OPs to pay Rs.61,000/- along with interest 15% per annum and also litigation expenses Rs.15,000/-.

2.      OP resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action for filing the present complaint had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is therefore submitted that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party.

2.1    Further the OP submits that 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 water distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation and drinking water facilities to the four states.

2.2    It is further averred that with a view to part finance the Sardar Sarovar Project OP-2 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.3,600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment. In the year 2008, the Government of Gujarat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (Conferment of Power to Rdeem Bonds) Act, 2008. The said Act amended the financial covenants and conditions for Bonds by providing an option to the OP-2 to redeem the bonds earlier, on such date and with such deemed face value as OP-2 may determine, by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in the said Act. Pursuant to the said Act the board of directors of OP-2 on 03.11.2008, decided to redeem the bonds earlier and determined the date of such redemption as 10.01.2009 with deemed face value of Rs.50,000/- per bond. OP-2 through its registrar and transfer agent, MCS Limited (OP-3) sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter-alia, explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on 10.01.2009. In addition to the aforesaid, OP-2 published the notice, in Times of India, all India editions including New Delhi edition, on 05.11.2008 and on its website.

2.3    A copy of the public notice and the notice sent to the individual bond holders are annexed as Annexure-E and Annexure-F respectively. Copy of the postal proof in respect of the notice sent to the complainant under Postal Certificate is annexed as Annexure-G. Clause -8 of the said notice provides that no interest on the redemption amount will accrue after 10.01.2009.

2.4    It is next averred that despite the above notices complainants did not approach the OPs for a long period finally it was only on 22.07.2014 the OP-2 was approached. OP-2 immediately on receipt of the duly discharged bond certificate for redemption along with necessary document paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants. The complainants received the said amount without any protest and the said amount was credited into the bank account of the complainants. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.  

3.      Rejoinder and evidence by way affidavit is filed by the complainants wherein the averments made in the complaint are reiterated. Evidence of Shri Harish Patel, General Manager (Resources and Credit) has been filed on behalf OP.

4. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP-2 and have also perused the material placed on record.
6. It is the case of the complainants that in pursuance of issuance of deep discount bond of Rs.3,600/- each with redemption value of Rs.1,11,000/- after 20 years, the complainants invested a sum of Rs.3,600/- each in such bonds on 11.01.1994 and the said bonds were to be redeemed on 11.01.2014. It is further the case of the complainants that on expiry of said 20 years after 11.01.2014 when they contacted OP-2 for redemption of the bond. They were redeemed the said bonds and the complainants received the deemed face value of Rs.50,000/-. In the said circumstances alleging deficiency in service on part of the OPs, the complainants filed their complaint.
7. Before going into the merits of the case, we shall deal with preliminary objection raised by the OP that the present case is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. At the time of hearing the final arguments, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was raised by OP-2. In response to the objection raised, the complainant No. 1 placed on record an envelope in which the original bond certificate dated 19.06.1995 was received by him and outside the envelope it is very clearly mentioned that “If undelivered, please return to : MAS AB-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.” It is pertinent to mention that MAS is OP-1 in the present complaint.
8. Further OP-2 has taken the plea that OP-1 had no role to play for the purpose of redemption of bonds and therefore, OP-1 is neither necessary nor proper party to the present complaint. We do not agree with OP-2 as OP-1 might not have any role to play for the purpose of redemption of bonds but it was through OP-1 that the bonds were physically delivered to the complainants which fact has not been denied by OP-2.  Therefore, OP-1 is a necessary party having its address under territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, as regards territorial jurisdiction, this Forum rejects the plea of OP-2.
9. Now, on the merits of the case, this Forum is of the opinion that the present complaint is not meritorious as the redemption of the Secured Redeemable Non Tax Exempt Deep Discount bonds was carried out by OP-2, pursuant to the enactment of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Act, 2008 which is passed by the Government of Gujarat, in public interest. Since the redemption of the bonds was in pursuance to the law for the time being in force the same cannot constitute any deficiency in service. As long as the said Act remains unchallenged, any action taken on the basis of such enactment, cannot be said to be improper.
10. Further OP-2 had given individual notice and public notices in the newspaper and on its website regarding the date of such redemption as 10.01.2009. However, the complainants ignored the notices and did not approach the OPs for a long period. Finally complainants approached OP-2 in 22.07.2014 for redemption of bond and upon receipt of duly discharge bond certificate for redemption along with necessary documents, OP-2 paid the redemption amount to the complainants which was received without any protest. Having received the amount without any protest, the complainant is estopped from claiming any further amount.
11. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.01.2019.