Sreedevi Sreekumar W/o Sh. Satish Kumar vs State Bank Of India & Anr

Ram Surat Ram Maurya,Presiding Member

Heard Ms. Sreedevi Sreekumar, in person for the appellant and Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate, for respondent-2

This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 07.07.2017, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

The appellant filed Consumer Complaint No.461 of 2017 for direction to the respondents to pay Rs.119363.69 along with simple interest @1.5% from 30.04.2012; (ii) to pay Rs.25,000,00/-as compensation for mental agony; and (iii) and cost of the litigation.

It has been stated in the complaint that SBI Fund Management Private Limited (respondent-2) was a subsidiary company of State Bank of India (respondent-1). Respondent-2 launched Mutual Fund scheme in the name and style "Magnum Tax Gain" in 1993 which was an Equity Linked Savings Scheme. The complainant filed an application on 11.12.2007 for investment of Rs.25,000,00/- after paying Rs.5625/- as entry load. The complainant was allotted 3631.351 "Magnum" units in the aforesaid scheme. The investment was redeemed by the complainant on 30.04.2012. At the time of redemption, the complainant was paid sum of Rs.209294.46 in addition to her initial investment. On the allegations that although the respondents declared annual dividends on 15.02.2008, 29.05.2009, 05.03.2010, 18.03.2011 and 22.03.2012 and paid it to various investors, but it was not paid to the complainant although she was entitled for it and non-payment of dividend was deficiency in service, this complaint was filed.

The complaint was contested by respondent-2 on the ground that under the scheme of SBI Magnum Tax Gain 1993, two modes of option had been provided i.e. "Growth option" and "Dividend option". The complainant in her application form has opted for "Growth option", therefore, the dividend was not distributed to her. On the date of redemption, total Net Asset of the Magnum value was given to the complainant according to the scheme and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service.

The State Commission after hearing parties, by the impugned order held that as the complainant had opted for "Growth option" as such she was not entitled for dividend and there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party-2. On these findings, the complaint was dismissed. Hence, this appeal has been filed.

The appellant submitted that the under clauses X.2.2(b) and XIII.1 of the Scheme Information Document, it has been provided periodical income depending on distributable surplus would be distributed to all the investors. Clause X.2. was headed as Fundamental Attributes. It has been provided that fundamental attributes of the scheme could not be changed without consent of less than 75% of Magnum scheme holders. In the background, relating to the key information memorandum, in the application form also it has been mentioned to distribute income periodically depending on distributable surplus. Although opposite party declared dividends every year time to time as mentioned in the complaint, but it was not distributed to the complainant. The brochure is a terms of agreement and cannot be violated by the opposite party. The complaint has been wrongly dismissed by the State Commission. She relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL World-wide Express Courier Division of Airfrieght Ltd., 1996 SC 2508, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur, (2013) 5 SCC 427 and Punjab University Vs. Unit Trust of India, (2015) 2 SCC 669.

I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The appellant has filed the brochure of Magnum Tax Gain Scheme 1993 as Annexure B to this appeal, in which, there is a column of "Plans and Options" in which two plans have been detailed, namely, "Growth" & "Dividend". In dividend, further options were provided for "Pay out" and "Re-investment" facility. Condition No.20 of the guidelines required to tick either on the "Growth" or on the "Dividend" option. In the application form also these options were mentioned. The application form of the complainant had been filed by respondent-2 along with its reply, which clearly indicates that the appellant had ticked upon the "Growth" option and not upon the "Dividend" option. In the growth option, the benefit accrued was added to value to the Net Asset Value, while in the dividend option, dividend was paid as and when it was declared by the appropriate authority. Since the appellant had opted for "growth" option, as such she would not be entitled for payment of the dividend.

So far as annual investment value is concerned, it has been paid to the appellant, according to the value of Magnum at the time of redemption and there is no complaint in this respect. The judgment of State Commission does not suffer from any illegality.

ORDER

Appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.