Heard Mr.S.K.Padhy,Senior Advocate and Mr. C.R.:Purohit,Advocate appearing from the side of the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of complainant, is that the Ops have floated a scheme for the public to purchase the bonds for twenty years. The complainant being desirous to invest money, invested sum of Rs.3600/- with the scheme of OP on 11.01.1994 vide allotment No No.351880,distinctive no.SN-337489 with the assured amount of Rs.1,11,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that in the month of February,2014, the OP No.1 only paid Rs.50,000/- by deducting TDS Rs.640/- and altogether Rs.45,360/- instead of Rs.1,11,000/-. Thereafter the complainant requested OP several times to pay the rest of the maturity amount. Since, the Ops did not accede to the request, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 & 2 filed written version stating that the OP No.1 is finance company in the name and style of Sardar Sarovar Project owned by Gujrat State Government and they have issued Secured Redeemable Non Tax Exempt Deep Discount Bonds for public interest. They admitted about the purchase of bond for Rs.3600/- for twenty years with maturity value of Rs.1,11,000/- as stated by the complainant. It is further averred that due to slark in market condition, they decided to redeem the bonds in 3rd November,2008,accordingly they issued same in the public newspaper Times of India to redeem the amount for Rs.50,000/- per bond. Accordingly, they have paid Rs.50,000/- by deducting the TDS therefrom. So, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ i. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay simple interest of 8 % per annum calculated on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date 10.01.09 to till Feb’14.
No order as to costs.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied within 30 days of date of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12 % interest per annum until its realization.”
6. Learned Senior counsel Mr.Padhy for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version and the documents filed by the Ops with proper perspectives. According to him, under the scheme the OP has redeemed the bond in 2008 and for general public they have published in newspaper Times of India which is widely circulated. Besides, they have issued notices to all investors. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law. He emphasized that if a public notice is published in newspaper, it is noticed for all investors including general public.
7. Moreover, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the learned District Forum,Nawarangpur lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as all the Ops belong to State of Gujrat and Delhi. No cause of action arose at Nawarangpur. Also he submits that no branch office of OP is also available at Nawarangpur. He also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S. Sonic Surgical-Vrs- National Insurance Co.Ltd,2010 AIR-SCW 298,Civil Appeal N.1560 of 2004 disposed of on 20th October,2009. He supports his claim. Therefore, he submitted to set-asie the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is well settled in law that complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is admitted fact that that the Op has floated a scheme under Secured Redeemable Non Tax Exempt Deep Discount Bonds . It is also not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the bond of Rs.3600/- on 11.01.1994 for sum assured of Rs.1,11,000/-which will be available in February,2014. It is also not in dispute that OP No.1 has paid Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in February,2014. The only question arises in this case whether the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- or Rs.1,11,000/-.
10. The learned District Forum has discussed the case but he has not believed the story of the OPs who have taken plea that Annexure-D is to notice to bond holder for redemption of bonds. This notice dtd.11.08.2009 shows that the copy of the newspaper cutting of Times of India,Bhubaneswar was issued on 05.11.2008.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that besides this paper publication same is also informed to the individual bond holder in the year 2009. All these documents have not been properly appreciated by the learned District Forum. It must be remembered that judicial notice can be taken of the newspaper which is regarded as public notice. Since, there is paper publication made with due notice to bond holder, it can not be said that no notice is served. It is revealed from the paper publication that the face value of the bond would be Rs.50,000/- available as on 10.01.2009 and no further notice would be sent after said date. This fact has not been properly understood by the learned District Forum. Thus, we are satisfied that the payment of Rs.50,000/- in view of this notice to the complainant is justified. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
11. Learned District Forum has also decided the fact about the territorial jurisdiction but the reasons has not very clear to convince us that it has territorial jurisdiction. Hon’ble Appex Court in the judgment M/S.Sonic Surgical-Vrs- National Insurance Co.Ltd. clearly held that the expression branch office as amended in Section-17(2) of the Act 1986 that cause of action has arisen. In the instant case when OP No.1 & 2 belongs to State of Gujrat and OP No.2 belongs to Delhi and no part of cause of action arises at Nawarangpur, with due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the learned District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find there is force with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are also of the view that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, we intervene the impugned order and thereby find same is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
