IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/28/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
21.02.18 28.02.18 12.09.19
Complainant: Nripen Kumar Mandal
S/O Late Sarabindu Mandal, Vill. Amatpur,
P.O.Rainda, P.S. Nabagram,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742187
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank Of India
8/513 Old Kolkata Road, Kalyan Nagar,
Rahara, Kolkata, West Bengal,
Pin 700112.
2. Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank Of India
23/56 Gariahat, Flyover India,
Dhakuria, Hindusthan Park,
Gariahat,
Kolkata-700029.
3. Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank Of India
Gr. Floor, Gr. Floor, Berhampore Shopping Plaza,
34 S N Bhattacharyya, Kadai,
P.O. Berhampore, Murshidabad,
Pin 742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Smt. Monalisa Dutta Thakur.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 : Sri. Satinath Chandra.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
One Nripen Kumar Mondal (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank of India and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a bond of Rs.5,500/- on 1997 from the Industrial Development Bank of India (OP) on condition that after 20 years 4 months i.e. 31st May, 2017, this OP will return a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) with interest. But after 20 years 4 months the OP refused to pay the said amount on repeated demand. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case for appropriate relief.
After service of notice the OP No.3 appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the OP has exercised call option after giving proper notice to the purchaser of the Bond as per the terms and condition of the said IDBI Deep Discount Bond and for that reason there is no deficiency on the part of this OP and the case is liable to be dismissed.
The OP No.1 and 2 after service of notice did not turn up, so the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
Now the question arises-
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of the Complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased one IDBI Deep Discount Bond, 1997 from the OPs against the consideration price of Rs.5,500/-. The complainant stated that after 20 years 4 months i.e after 31.05.2017 the OP refused to pay the said amountof Rs. 1,00,000/-on repeated demand. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the O.P stated that they have exercised call option right on April 30, 2001 and the information about the call option was sent to the individual bond holder.
The call option of the redeem of the Bond is as follows:-
Date | Period from the date of allotment | Deemed face value |
April 30, 2001 | 4 years and 3 months | -
|
September 30,2007 | 10 years and 8 months | -
|
July 31, 2012 | 15 years and 6 months | Rs. 50,000/- |
May 31,2017 | 20 years and 4 months | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No.3 drew our attention that the bank took enough measures to inform the bond holders by issuing public notice in leading newspapers, regarding the redemption of the bond of the value as on April 30, 2001. The bond holders including the Complainant were informed individually also by sending notice.
From the documents filed by the OP it is also evident that there was call option and the Call option column reads as such IDBI reserved the right (call option) to redeem the Deep Discount Bond on the dated mentioned above and in that event, the Deemed Face Value of the Bond as per the table given above will be paid to the Bond holders.
Ld. Advocates of the OP relied upon two judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Commission.
In Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank and Another in Revision Petition No. 3930 of 2013 the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the redemption option of the bond as exercised by the IDBI was legal.
In Mahendrapa Kashiram Sharma Vs. Manga IDBI Bank in Revision Petition No. 3107 of 2012 the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the Complainant/Petitioner having applied for the bond on aforesaid terms and condition, he is bound by that and consequently, cannot have a valid grievance on account of IDBI having exercised the option for redemption.The observation made by the Hon’ble National Commission is fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both sides and the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @3.5% p.a from April 30,2001 to till its realization.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 21.02.18 and admitted on 28.02.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct.
In result the complaint case succeed. . Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint Case No. CC/28/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs without cost.
The OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs10,000/- along with interest @ 3.5% per annum with effect from 30.04.2001 till payment to the complainant subject to complying the procedural requirement. The Complainant be directed to surrender the bond by 30 days from the date of this order till realization.
The OPs are directed to comply the order by 30 days from the date of receipt of the surrendered bond from the complainant, otherwise it shall carry the interest @ 7% per annum from the
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
