State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohindra Partap Vasudeva vs M/S Sardar Sarover Narmada Nigam Ltd. on 15 February, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.351 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015
Order reserved on:13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017
1. Mohinder Partap Vasudeva son of Sh. Uttam Chand Vasudeva
resident of 10-E, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Mohini Vasudeva wife of Sh. Mohinder Partap Vasudeva son
of Sh. Uttam Chand Vasudeva resident of 10-E, Tagore Nagar,
Ludhiana.
3. Sachin Vasudeva son of Sh. Mohinder Partap Vasudeva son of
Sh. Uttam Chand Vasudeva resident of 10-E, Tagore Nagar,
Ludhiana.
.....Appellants/complainants
Versus
1. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Regd Office at Block
No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010-
Gujrat through its Managing Director.
2. M/s MCS Ltd. Registrar-Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
101, Shatdal Compex, Opp. Bata Show Room, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad- Gujrat-380009 through its Managing Director.
IInd Address
3. MCS Ltd. Legal Address: 21/22, Kashiram Jamnadas Building,
5 P.D. Mello Road, Ground Floor, Mumbai, Maharashtra-
400009 through its Managing Director.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.01.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Mihir Parekh and Sh. Sanjeev
Goyal, Advocates
For respondent nos.2&3 : Ex-parte
.................................................
First Appeal No.351 of 2015 2
2) First Appeal No.352 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015
Order reserved on:13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017
1. Sulkshana Sehgal wife of Sh. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate.
2. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, son of Sh. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate.
Both resident of House No.49/69, Harpal Nagar, Near Hotel Shiraz,
Ludhiana.
.....Appellants/complainants
Versus
1. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Regd Office at Block
No.112, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010-
Gujrat through its Managing Director.
2. M/s MCS Ltd. 101, Shatdal Compex, Opp. Bata Show Room,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Gujrat-380009 through its
Managing Director.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.01.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Mihir Parekh and Sh. Sanjeev
Goyal, Advocates
For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte
.................................................
3) First Appeal No.353 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015
Order reserved on:13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017
Ramesh Chander Anand son of Sh. Lekh Raj Anand resident of 93-
C, Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Regd Office at Block
No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010-
Gujrat through its Managing Director.
First Appeal No.351 of 2015 3
2. M/s MCS Ltd. 101, Shatdal Compex, Opp. Bata Show Room,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Gujrat-380009 through its
Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.01.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Mihir Parekh and Sh. Sanjeev
Goyal, Advocates
For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte
.................................................
4) First Appeal No.354 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015
Order reserved on:13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017
Vinod Anand wife of Sh. Ramesh Chander Anand, resident of 93-C,
Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Regd Office at Block
No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010-
Gujrat through its Managing Director.
2. M/s MCS Ltd. 101, Shatdal Compex, Opp. Bata Show Room,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Gujrat-380009 through its
Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory..
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.01.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Mihir Parekh and Sh. Sanjeev
Goyal, Advocates
For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte
.................................................
AND
5) First Appeal No.355 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.03.2015
First Appeal No.351 of 2015 4
Order reserved on:13.02.2017
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017
Niraj Anand son of Sh. Ramesh Chander Anand resident of 93-C,
Rajguru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Regd Office at Block
No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar-382010-
Gujrat through its Managing Director.
2. M/s MCS Ltd. 101, Shatdal Compex, Opp. Bata Show Room,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Gujrat-380009 through its
Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.01.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sachin Vasudeva, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Sh. Mihir Parekh and Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocates For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte ................................................. J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Since the common controversy of facts and law are involved in above appeals, hence they are being disposed of together by means of this common order, which shall be pronounced by us in main first appeal no.351 of 2015 titled as "Mohinder Partap Vasudeva & others Vs. M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & others", which has been filed by the complainants of complaint no.329 of 2014 and decided on 27.01.2015 as appellants of this appeal against order dated 27.01.2015 of District Consumer First Appeal No.351 of 2015 5 Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), dismissing the complaint of the appellants for want of territorial jurisdiction. Respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellants of this appeal are complainants in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. F.A. No.351 of 2015
2. The complainants filed complaint no.329 of 2014 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that pursuant to advertisement issued by OP no.1, complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- with OP no.1 on 07.01.1995 for a period of 20 years. OP no.2 is the Registrar and Transfer Agent of OP no.1. OP no.1 issued 'Promissory Note Deep Discount Bond' bearing registered folio no.SN368634 and certificate no.356897 to be matured after the period of 20 years i.e. on 11.01.2014 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The Deep Discount Bond Certificate interalia is as under:
"Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited does hereby promise to pay M.P. Vasudeva, Mohini Vasudeva & Sachin Vasudeva on 11th January 2014 a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand only) being the face value of the Bond herein contained for the value received."
On maturity, the complainant delivered original certificate duly endorsed at the back of certificate alongwith PAN card, cancelled cheque, statement of account and form 15-G to OP no.2, being First Appeal No.351 of 2015 6 Registrar of OP no.1, through speed post no.EP2556745461N dated 16.01.2014. After dispatch of original certificate, the complainant contacted OP no.1 on telephone and it was intimated that draft of above amount has been processed and would be delivered to complainant shortly. The complainants have not received the draft of the amount till date. The OPs are bound to pay the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- to complainant even in the event of surrender of the above bond certificate. Non payment of above amount after surrender of the bond certificate is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainants served legal notice dated 07.03.2014 upon OPs, but to no effect. The complainants deposited the amount at Ludhiana and dispatched the bonds on its maturity from Ludhiana, hence cause of action accrued to file complaint thereat. The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,11,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization, besides pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed prolix written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants vehemently. It was averred in it 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 along with water distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation to farmers of above States due to scarcity of water there. OP no.1 was First Appeal No.351 of 2015 7 incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Sardar Sarovar Project came 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.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment. OP no.1 issued prospectus dated September 29, 1993 and issued bond certificates to the bond holders pursuant to the prospectus. Sardar Sarovar Project is still not fully completed. The rate of interest under the bonds was excess of 18% and was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions and is unsustainable. The Government of Gujrat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008, which was published on March 29, 2008 in the Gujarat Government Gazettee. This Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for Bonds by providing an option to OP no.1 to redeem the bonds earlier on such date and with such deemed face value as OP no.1 may determine by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in this Act. OP no.1 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. OP no.2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter alia, explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on January 10, 2009. OP no.1 published the contents of notice, inter alia, in Time of India, all India Edition, on November 5, 2008. The complainants approached OP no.1 in First Appeal No.351 of 2015 8 January, 2014 for redemption of bond. The complainants were entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- for one bond jointly held by them. OP no.1 on receipt of bond certificate alongwith documents, paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant no.1, vide warrant no.317245 dated February 1, 2014, but complainant no.1 did not encash the aforesaid warrant for a long period for the reasons best known to him. The complaint is alleged to be not maintainable. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complaint is also averred to be barred by time and hit by delay, laches, estoppels and acquiescence. Any deficiency in service was vehemently denied by OP no.1 on its part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP no.2 was set exparte before the District Forum Ludhiana, vide order dated 11.06.2014. F.A. No.352 of 2015
4. The appellants have filed this appeal against order dated 27.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint no.12 of 2015 was dismissed by the District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction and time barred. Respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellants of this appeal are complainants in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
5. The complainants filed complaint no.12 of 2015 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that pursuant to advertisement issued First Appeal No.351 of 2015 9 by OP no.1, complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- with OP no.1 on 07.01.1995 for a period of 20 years. OP no.2 is the Registrar and Transfer Agent of OP no.1. OP no.1 issued 'Promissory Note Deep Discount Bond' bearing registered folio no.SN368634 and certificate no.356897 to be matured after the period of 20 years i.e. on 11.01.2014 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The Deep Discount Bond Certificate interalia is as under:
"Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited does hereby promise to pay M.P. Vasudeva, Mohini Vasudeva & Sachin Vasudeva on 11th January 2014 a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand only) being the face value of the Bond herein contained for the value received."
On maturity, the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2014 sent original bond certificate duly endorsed at the back of certificate alongwith PAN card, cancelled cheque and form 15-G to OP no.2, being Registrar of OP no.1. After receipt of the same, OP no.2 sent to complainant no.1 a cheque dated 01.08.2014 for Rs.50,000/- only. The OPs are bound to pay the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- being the face value and interest at the agreed rate w.e.f. 11.01.2014. The OPs are under obligation to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum to the complainants. The complainants served legal notice dated 25.08.2014 upon OPs, but to no effect. The complainants deposited the amount at Ludhiana and dispatched the bonds on its maturity from Ludhiana, hence cause of action accrued to file complaint there. The complainants prayed that First Appeal No.351 of 2015 10 OPs be directed to pay Rs.61,000/- as balance amount alongwith interest @18% per annum Rs.10,000/-, besides pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
6. The District Forum heard the counsel for the complainants on the point of admissibility of the complaint and dismissed the same as barred by territorial jurisdiction and time barred. Aggrieved by order of District Forum, the complainants, now appellants have directed this appeal against the same. F.A. No.353 of 2015
7. The appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 27.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction and time barred. Respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
8. The complainant filed complaint no.336 of 2014 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that OP nos.1 and 2 are limited companies. In pursuant to advertisement issued by OP no.1 in Punjab news paper complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- with OP no.1 for a period of 20 years. OP no.1 issued 'Promissory Note Deep Discount Bond' bearing registered folio no.SN369358 and certificate no.357754. The said bond was to be redeemed on First Appeal No.351 of 2015 11 11.01.2014 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The complainant wrote letter on 13.12.2013 to OP no.1 for issuance of forms to him for redemption of bond face value of Rs.1,11,000/- on 11.01.2014. In reply, OP no.1 alleged that it had started redemption of DDB from 10.01.2009 with the redemption value of Rs.50,000/- per bond and it had issued notice dated 03.11.2008 to all the investors individually regarding early redemption. The complainant did not receive any such notice, as alleged by OP no.1. OP no.1 instead of making full compliance of the letter dated 15.01.2014, sent cheque dated 01.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 11.02.2014 acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque under protest and reserving his right to recover the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith accrued thereon from OP no.1. The OPs are under obligation to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainants deposited the amount at Ludhiana hence cause of action accrued to file complaint there. The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.61,000/- as balance amount alongwith interest @18% per annum, besides pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
9. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed prolix written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants vehemently. It was averred that Sardar Sarovar is an Inter-State, multi-purpose joint venture of four States viz, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra First Appeal No.351 of 2015 12 and Rajasthan to build a terminal dam on the river Narmada along with water distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation to farmers of above States due to scarcity of water there. OP no.1 was incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Sardar Sarovar Project came 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.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment. OP no.1 issued prospectus dated September 29, 1993 and issued bond certificates to the bond holders pursuant to the prospectus. Sardar Sarovar Project is still not fully completed. The rate of interest under the bonds was excess of 18% and was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions and is unsustainable. The Government of Gujrat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008, which was published on March 29, 2008 in the Gujarat Government Gazettee. This Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for Bonds by providing an option to OP no.1 to redeem the bonds earlier on such date and with such deemed face value as OP no.1 may determine by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in this Act. OP no.1 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. OP no.2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter alia, explaining the First Appeal No.351 of 2015 13 procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on January 10, 2009. The complainant was entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- for one bond jointly held by them. OP no.1 on receipt of bond certificate alongwith documents, paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant no.1, vide warrant no.317273 and complainant is not entitled to any other claim. The complaint is alleged to be not maintainable. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complaint is also averred to be barred by time and hit by delay, laches, estoppels and acquiesces. Any deficiency in service was vehemently denied by OP no.1 on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP no.2 was set exparte before the District Forum Ludhiana, vide order dated 03.07.2014. F.A. No.354 of 2015
10. The appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 27.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction and time barred. Respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
11. The complainant filed complaint no.335 of 2014 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that OP nos.1 and 2 are limited companies. In pursuant to advertisement issued by OP no.1 in Punjab news paper complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- with First Appeal No.351 of 2015 14 OP no.1 for a period of 20 years. OP no.1 issued 'Promissory Note Deep Discount Bond' bearing registered folio no.SN369360 and certificate no.357756. The said bond was to be redeemed on 11.01.2014 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The husband of the complainant wrote letter on 13.12.2013 to OP no.1 for issuance of forms to him for redemption of bond face value of Rs.1,11,000/- on 11.01.2014. In reply, OP no.1 alleged that it had started redemption of DDB from 10.01.2009 with the redemption value of Rs.50,000/- per bond and it had issued notice dated 03.11.2008 to all the investors individually regarding early redemption. The complainant did not receive any such notice, as alleged by OP no.1. OP no.1 instead of making full compliance of the letter dated 15.01.2014, sent cheque dated 01.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 11.02.2014 acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque under protest and reserving her right to recover the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith accrued thereon from OP no.1. The OPs are under obligation to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainants deposited the amount at Ludhiana hence cause of action accrued to file complaint there. The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.61,000/- as balance amount alongwith interest @18% per annum, besides pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. First Appeal No.351 of 2015 15
12. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed prolix written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants vehemently. It was averred 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 along with water distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation to farmers of above States due to scarcity of water there. OP no.1 was incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Sardar Sarovar Project came 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.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment. OP no.1 issued prospectus dated September 29, 1993 and issued bond certificates to the bond holders pursuant to the prospectus. Sardar Sarovar Project is still not fully completed. The rate of interest under the bonds was excess of 18% and was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions and is unsustainable. The Government of Gujrat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008, which was published on March 29, 2008 in the Gujarat Government Gazettee. This Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for Bonds by providing an option to OP no.1 to redeem the bonds earlier on such date and with such deemed face value as OP no.1 may determine by payment of the amount so determined as First Appeal No.351 of 2015 16 stipulated in this Act. OP no.1 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. OP no.2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter alia, explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on January 10, 2009. The complainant was entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- for one bond jointly held by them. OP no.1 on receipt of bond certificate alongwith documents, paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant no.1, vide warrant no.317275 and complainant is not entitled to any other claim. The complaint is alleged to be not maintainable. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complaint is also averred to be barred by time and hit by delay, laches, estoppels and acquiesces. Any deficiency in service was vehemently denied by OP no.1 on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP no.2 was set exparte before the District Forum Ludhiana, vide order dated 03.07.2014. F.A. No.355 of 2015
13. The appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 27.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction and time barred. Respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties and appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. First Appeal No.351 of 2015 17
14. The complainant filed complaint no.337 of 2014 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that OP nos.1 and 2 are limited companies. In pursuant to advertisement issued by OP no.1 in Punjab news paper complainants deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- with OP no.1 for a period of 20 years. OP no.1 issued 'Promissory Note Deep Discount Bond' bearing registered folio no.SN369359 and certificate no.357755. The said bond was to be redeemed on 11.01.2014 with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/-. The father of the complainant wrote letter on 13.12.2013 to OP no.1 for issuance of forms to him for redemption of bond face value of Rs.1,11,000/- on 11.01.2014. In reply, OP no.1 alleged that it had started redemption of DDB from 10.01.2009 with the redemption value of Rs.50,000/- per bond and it had issued notice dated 03.11.2008 to all the investors individually regarding early redemption. The complainant did not receive any such notice, as alleged by OP no.1. OP no.1 instead of making full compliance of the letter dated 15.01.2014, sent cheque dated 01.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 11.02.2014 acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque under protest and reserving her right to recover the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith accrued thereon from OP no.1. The OPs are under obligation to pay the balance amount of Rs.61,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainants deposited the amount First Appeal No.351 of 2015 18 at Ludhiana hence cause of action accrued to file complaint there. The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.61,000/- as balance amount alongwith interest @18% per annum, besides pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
15. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed prolix written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants vehemently. It was averred 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 along with water distribution and hydro-electric facilities. This public interest project is meant to provide irrigation to farmers of above States due to scarcity of water there. OP no.1 was incorporated as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Sardar Sarovar Project came 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.3600/- per bond with a maturity period of 20 years from the date of allotment. OP no.1 issued prospectus dated September 29, 1993 and issued bond certificates to the bond holders pursuant to the prospectus. Sardar Sarovar Project is still not fully completed. The rate of interest under the bonds was excess of 18% and was out of alignment with the prevailing market conditions and is unsustainable. The Government of Gujrat in public interest, passed the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008, which was published on March 29, 2008 in the Gujarat Government First Appeal No.351 of 2015 19 Gazettee. This Act amends the financial covenants and conditions for Bonds by providing an option to OP no.1 to redeem the bonds earlier on such date and with such deemed face value as OP no.1 may determine by payment of the amount so determined as stipulated in this Act. OP no.1 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. OP no.2 sent individual notices to all the bond holders, inter alia, explaining the procedure for claiming the redemption amount as on January 10, 2009. The complainant was entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- for one bond jointly held by them. OP no.1 on receipt of bond certificate alongwith documents, paid the redemption amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant no.1, vide warrant no.317274 and complainant is not entitled to any other claim. The complaint is alleged to be not maintainable. The complaint is without any cause of action. The complaint is also averred to be barred by time and hit by delay, laches, estoppels and acquiesces. Any deficiency in service was vehemently denied by OP no.1 on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP no.2 was set exparte before the District Forum Ludhiana.
16. The parties led evidence in support of their pleas. After conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaints of the complainants for want of territorial jurisdiction, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the order, the complainants First Appeal No.351 of 2015 20 now appellants of above referred five appeals have preferred these appeals against the same.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The point involved in all the appeals is as to whether the District Forum Ludhiana has jurisdiction to try the complaints or not. The District Forum Ludhiana passed the order dated 27.01.2015 in all the above referred cases holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the above referred complaints and they be presented before appropriate Forum only for the Redressal of the grievances. The orders passed by the District Forum to this effect in all the above referred five complaints have been challenged by virtue of above five appeals before us. The facts of the case are summarized in this case to get the drift of the matter as to what are the disputes in all the above referred five complaints giving rise to cause of action to the complainants. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop is that advertisement was issued by M/s Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. OP no.1 and pursuant thereto, the complainants deposited Rs.3600/- with OP for a period of 20 years. OP no.1 issued promissory note deep discount bonds to the complainants of above five complaints. On maturity, the complainants delivered original certificate alongwith necessary documents to OPs. The OPs are legally bound to pay the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- to them, being the face value of the above bonds, as promised. The complainants served legal notice upon OPs, but to no effect. The complainant First Appeal No.351 of 2015 21 deposited Rs.3600/- at Ludhiana and also dispatched the bonds on its maturity from Ludhiana.
18. On the above factual situation of the complaints, the District Forum dismissed the complaints for want of jurisdiction by observing that OPs neither resided voluntarily nor carried on their business within the jurisdiction of the District Forum Ludhiana nor any part of cause of action accrued thereat. The complainants were left to seek the remedy before the appropriate Forum by means of impugned orders passed in above complaints by the District Forum.
19. We are mainly concerned with this point in the above appeals as to whether cause of action accrued to file the complaint at Ludhiana on the above referred factual situation of the case. The submission of counsel for the appellant is that payment for purchase of the above referred Promissory note deep discount bonds were made at Ludhiana. The complainants also applied by means of delivery of original bonds with necessary documents to OP no.2 from Ludhiana through speed post. The counsel for the appellants contended that since the payments to purchase the above referred bonds were deposited in the bank at Ludhiana and cancellation on maturity of the bonds was applied for by the complainants at Ludhiana, hence the Ludhiana District Forum was conferred jurisdiction to try the complaints, as cause of action accrued thereat. The counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in case "Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others" 1994(4) Supreme Court Cases 711 and First Appeal No.351 of 2015 22 contended that the above facts would not constitute the integral part of the cause of action. The averments in the complaints did not disclose that even if a fraction of cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the District Forum Ludhiana. Reference was also made by counsel for the respondents to law laid down in "Alchemist Ltd. and another Versus State Bank of Sikkim and others" 200-11 Supreme Court cases-335 that expression cause of action has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in CPC. It may, however, be described as a bundle of essential facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour. Cause of action thus gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. If there is no cause of action, the plaint or petition has to be dismissed. For the purpose of deciding whether the facts averred by the appellant- petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. Similarly, reliance was placed by counsel for the respondents on the judgment in case titled as "Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Unitech Ltd. & others" II(2016) CPJ-5(NC), wherein the National Commission has held that FDRs were issued by registered office of OP at New Delhi, which were signed by duly authorized signatory of New Delhi. Merely because complainant presented FDRs for release of maturity amount at branch office, State Commission at Chandigarh where branch office is situated does not get territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Similarly, First Appeal No.351 of 2015 23 reliance was placed on the judgment of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore passed in Appeal No.470/2015, 472/2015 to 476/2015, decided on 28.09.2016, wherein it has been held that in such circumstances no cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of District Forum where the refund of the amount on maturity was applied for.
20. On the other hand, counsel for the appellants contended that payments/deposit of the amounts for purchase of above referred promissory deep discount bonds were made at Ludhiana giving rise to cause of action partly to file the complaint within the jurisdiction of the District Forum Ludhiana. Admittedly, the complainants deposited the amounts for purchase of the above referred bonds at Ludhiana. The complainants applied for refund of the amounts on maturity by doing needful at Ludhiana. The appellants relied upon judgment of our own State Commission in Revision Petition No.48 of 2013 titled as "United India Insurance Company Limited & another Vs. Mr. Sunil Jain & others", decided on 06.09.2013, wherein our own State Commission observed that delivery of insurance certificate and receipt of premium of payment towards insurance premium form part of cause of action. The certificates were delivered at Ludhiana and payments were also received at that place, so it can safely be concluded that a part of cause of action had accrued at Ludhiana. The judgment of the National Commission in "Santa Banta .com Limited & another Vs. M/s Porsche Cars and others" in first appeal no.409 of 2012, decided on 14.02.2014 was also cited by First Appeal No.351 of 2015 24 counsel for the appellants. It has been held by the National Commission in the cited authority that payment of premium for obtaining the policy, payment of premium for the same from the regional office of the insurance company at Gurgaon are material foundational factors, giving rise to 'cause of action' partly, if not wholly, at Gurgaon. The National Commission held in the cited authority that payment of premium for obtaining the policy at a particular place gives right to cause of action. We find that payment of amounts for purchase of bonds at Ludhiana and receipts of the amounts at Ludhiana would constitute integral part of cause of action as held by the Apex Court in "Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others" (Supra). The OPs accepted the offer of complainants with deposit of money and this acceptance was conveyed to the complainants of this contract at Ludhiana giving rise to cause of action thereat. The gist of the pleadings contained in the complaints taken individually or collectively constitutes a cause of action for filing the petitions. Payment of the amount for purchase of bonds and receipt of amounts of the bonds on maturity are essential and integral factors in our opinion giving rise to a part of cause of action. Cause of action is bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence, which may be set up by defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other First Appeal No.351 of 2015 25 words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. To determine the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In the presence of the view taken by our own State Commission, the reliance of OP/respondent on Karnatka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore's authority would not help it. The reliance of respondent on law laid down in case "R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited" 1993 AIR (SCW) 2266 pertains to different facts. The cited judgment has arisen out of the civil suit where the parties restricted the jurisdiction mutually to Anand jurisdiction only. The ratio decidendi of this authority is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case. Similarly, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in "A.V.M. Sales Corporation Vs. M/s Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd." 2012(1) A.R.C. 801 is further distinguishable from the facts of the case. In the cited authority, the parties mutually restricted their jurisdiction which is permissible in the Civil matter in civil suit. Cause of action is bundle of facts, which are relevant for determination of lis between parties.
21. As a corollary of our above discussion, we hold that the fact of purchase of bonds by the complainants by depositing Rs.3600/-, which was sine-qua-non therefor at Ludhiana and receipt of money on maturity of the Promissory Note Deep Discount Bonds First Appeal No.351 of 2015 26 at Ludhiana and applying at Maturity of bonds at Ludhiana are essential parts of the bundle of facts, which are essential for the complainants to prove for succeeding in above complaints. The Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint, where cause of action partly arises. There is no dispute about this fact that OPs do not voluntarily reside or carry on their business within the jurisdiction of the District Forum Ludhiana, but cause of action partly accrued at Ludhiana, where the complainants deposited the amounts for purchasing the above said bonds and receipt the payment thereof on maturity of the bonds and also apply for refund of the amounts from Ludhiana of the above bond on maturity. The acceptance of the contract was also conveyed by OPs to the complainants at Ludhiana. It would be prejudicial to the interest of the consumers if in such like circumstances, the complaint is required to be filed in Ahmedabad by a resident of Ludhiana. We, thus, do not agree with the findings of the District Forum in the orders under challenge in above referred appeals. Consequently, we hold that cause of action arose in part at Ludhiana and the District Forum at Ludhiana is competent to try the above complaints.
22. As a result of our above discussion, we accept all the above referred five appeals of the appellants by setting aside the order of the District Forum therein and all the cases are remanded to the District Forum Ludhiana for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before District Forum Ludhiana on 27.04.2017. The District Forum shall also endeavor to procure the First Appeal No.351 of 2015 27 presence of the parties before it. Record of the cases be sent back to District Forum Ludhiana immediately so as to reach there well before date fixed.
23. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 13.02.2017 and the orders were reserved. Certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
24. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (J.S. GILL) MEMBER February 15, 2017 (MM)