Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 746 of 2019
1- Small Industries Development Bank of India,
(SIDBI), having its office at M.d.M.E. and
Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
Through Deputy General Manager.
2- Small Industries Development Bank of India,
(SIDBI), having its office at M.d.M.E. and
Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
and also at Vikas Deep, 22, Station Road,
Lucknow through General Manager.
3- Small Industries Development Bank of India,
(SIDBI), having its office at M.d.M.E. and
Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
and also at Vikas Deep, 22, Station Road,
Lucknow through Managing Director.
Through their Authorized Signtory ……Appellants.
1- Sarita Agrahari, Adult, d/o Sri Udit Prakash
Alias Udit Narayan Agrahari, Hira, R/o 51,
Ashok Nagar, District, Fatehpur.
2- Abhilash Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sri Ramautar
Gupta, R/o Ashok Nagar, District, Fatehpur. .Respondents
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Justice Ashok Kumar, President.
2- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Member.
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants.
Sri Srikrishna Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2.
Date 6.10.2021
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 15 of the Consumer
(2)
Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2019 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Fatehpur in complaint case no.134 of 2018.
The appellants case is that, that the appellants are development financial institution in India and its purpose is to provide refinance facilities and short term lending to industries, and serve as a principal financial institution in the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector. The complainant filed the frivolous, vexatious and time-barred complaint before the Learned District Forum, Fatehpur alleging that the complainant vide application number EI775390 and registration number SI 03217425 purchased one SIDBI Deep Discount Bond (DDB) on issue price by paying ₹ 2500/– to the opposite parties and received certificate bearing number 0000273493 for the bond having face value of ₹ 1 lakh payable on 1 February 2018. The complainant further alleged that she received a letter having Ref no 4752/RMD/DDB dated 30 September 2016 from the appellants on 11th October 2016, wherein it was stated that the bond had been closed on 1 February 2002 and the information for the closure of the bond was advertised/published in the newspapers on 01.07.2001 and 02.07.2001 . Further letters dated 24 July 2001, 9 May 2005, 3 July 2006 and 5 March 2009 were also issued by registered post to the complainant regarding the same.
It was further alleged that the complainant had not received any notice/information regarding the closing of bond prior to the letter dated 30 September to 2016. It was further alleged by the complainant that as per the bond, the opposite
(3)
parties were liable to pay ₹ 1 lakh/– to the complainant after the period of 25 years from the date of allotment of bond and that the appellants wrongfully and illegally sent the letter after 24 years in order to avoid the payment of the due amount, thereby harming the interest of the complainant and causing financial loss by not providing proper services and that the appellants cannot close the bond prior to the tenure mentioned in the bond. The complainant further alleged that she sent a notice dated 6 January 2017 to the opposite parties regarding the payment of 1 lakh on the date of maturity that is 1 February 2018 to which the opposite parties replied vide letter dated 7 February 2017 bearing reference number 00122116/SIDBI/RMV/DDB wherein it was stated that after 1 February 2002, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest, however it was alleged by the complainant that no such condition was mentioned in the bond. Thereafter it was further alleged that the complainant sent a notice dated 19 March 2018 to the opposite parties regarding the payment of ₹ 1 lakh to which the opposite parties replied vide letter 04 April 2018 wherein it was stated that the payment of Rs.1 lakh cannot be made and the claim for the same is fictitious and futile. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint.
From the perusal of the offer document it is abundantly clear that the appellant reserves a right to call option or redemption/withdrawal of the bond at the end of the 5th , 9th , 12th ,15th or 20th year from the date of allotment and in the event of such redemption/withdrawal, the appellants shall announce its intention to do so in one English and one in the daily newspaper and also communicate to all the registered
(4)
holders of such bonds, at least six months prior to the date of redemption. On 1 February 1992, the appellants issued Deep Discount Bond having tenure of 25 years from the date of allotment of bond that is 1 February 1993 as per the offer document but on 1 February 2002 the appellant exercised their call option and redeemed the bonds and prior to exercising the call option the appellant had followed the procedure as mentioned in the offer document and the same was also communicated to all the bondholders by registered post at their registered address available with the appellant’s and the same was also published in various leading newspapers. The notices regarding the redemption of bond on first February 2002 were again published in various newspapers in 2001, 2016 and 2017.
The appellant again sent thousands of reminder letters to the bondholders and also issued redemption reminders in 15 newspapers covering 11 languages on pan India basis. The appellants issued the bonds on 1 February 1993 and exercised their right to withdraw the bonds on 1 February 2002 and duly communicated the same to the bondholders as per the procedure outlined in the offer document and after the withdrawal of bonds in 2002, the appellant’s are only liable to pay the value of the bond after nine years that is ₹ 9600/– and the net amount payable to the bondholders is ₹ 8876/– after deduction of TDS of ₹ 724/–, the appellants are not liable to pay ₹ 1 lakh to the complainant as alleged in the complainant. The appellants are always ready and willing to pay ₹ 8876/–. Due to redemption/withdrawal of the above said bond, the
(5)
respondent/complainant had ceased to be a consumer of the appellants. The complainant has not approached the Hon’ble commission with clean hands and has suppressed the marerial facts, just to misguide the Hon’ble commission whereas it is a settled legal proposition that one who seeks justice must come to the court with clean hands.
The impugned order dated 20 April 2019 passed by the Learned District Forum is illegal, unjust, arbitrary nature, contrary to the terms and conditions of the offer document. The Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to add are subtracted any of the conditions are worse of the terms and conditions of the scheme while granting the relief. The complaint is barred limitation. The learned District Forum has failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission. The impugned order is void and perverse. The Learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. Hence it is most respectfully prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment in order dated 20 April 2019 be set aside.
We have heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Sri Srikrishna Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.1. None appeared for the respondent no.2.
We have perused the impugned judgment of the Learned District Forum. The Learned District Forum allowed the complainant ex parte and directed the opposite parties to pay ₹ 1 lakh with interest at the rate of 7% along with ₹ 5000 towards mental agony. During argument the appellant failed to show any evidence regarding the issue of and receiving of letter of redemption by the respondent. To publish any advertisement in the newspaper doesn’t mean that it informed
(6)
all the concerned public in general. It is to be seen that the registered letter has been sent to the bondholder or not. The onus is on the appellant to prove this fact that he has sent a registered letter on the correct address of the bondholder / respondent and it has been duly served on him. In this case the appellant failed to show the service of his alleged registered letter on the respondent. So in this case we are of the opinion that the appellant failed to discharge his onus with satisfactory evidence and hence there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment of the Learned District Forum the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 20.4.2019 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Fatehpur in complaint case no.134 of 2018 is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Justice Ashok Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
President Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Justice Ashok Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
President Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 1
