| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 59 of 2011 Smt. Umasati Chakraborty, ……………………………………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. State Bank of India, (Represented by its Chief Manager, Silchar Branch, Park Road, Silchar-1. O.P No.1. 2. UTI Infrastructure Technology and Service Ltd., Regd. Office: Plot No.3, Sector-II, CBD Belepur, Novi Mumbai,400614. Maharastra. O.P No.2. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sri A. Biswas, Advocate for the complainant. Sri Debabrata Das, Advocate for the O.Ps. Date of Evidence……………………….. 27-09-2012, Date of written argument……………… 09-06-2017, 14-07-2017 Date of oral argument………………….. 10-08-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 24-08-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - The complaint brought by Smi. Umasati Chakraborty (Complainant) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Bank of India, Silchar Branch (O.P No.1) for disservice due to not-forwarding of her US-64 Bond Certificate No. 6025749 vide ID-33922345 to UTI infrastructure technology and services limited (O.P No.2) for renewal w.e.f. 01-06-2008 as the said bond is kept pledged with the O.P No.1 for securing House Building Loan vide Loan Account No. 01103352055.
- The Complainant stated inter-alia in his complaint that the said Bond had been matured on 31-05-2008 but on several times requested the O.P No.1 to forward the Bond to O.P No.2 for renewal because since 31-05-2008 the Bond amount ceased to earn interest. The O.P No.1 did not response. Hence, on 10-09-2011 served a pleader’s notice to the O.P but O.P No.1 did not give any response.
- The O.P No.1 in its W/S stated inter-alia that the allegation of requesting are false. However, admitted that a pleader’s notice dated 10-09-2011 received and then forwarded necessary forms for complying the requirement. The O.P No.1 also stated that a letter dated 07-11-2011 received from O.P No.2 and contest of the said letter conveyed to the complainant. The O.P No.2 in its W/S stated inter-alia that on receiving the letter from O.P No.1 replied vide letter dated 07-11-2011 that to renew the Bond following document required.
- Banker lien revocation certificate issued by the concern Bank.
- Letter from the complainant mentioning his/her present postal address and bank particulars together with original bond certificate, and
- Redemption Form duly signed by unit holder with signature attached by a Bank Manager under his official seal mentioned his name, Employee Code and designation for removing the lien marking.
- The O.P No.2 stated that if all the above requirement fulfilled then the maturity value of the Bond may be released to the complainant.
- During hearing the complainant deposed as P.W and exhibited pleader’s notice vide Ext.1. The O.Ps did not examine any witness. However, both sides’ counsels i.e the learned counsel of the complainant and counsel of the O.P No.1 submitted written argument. We have also heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.1.
- In this case the complainant has neither mention the amount of House Building Loan taken from O.P No.1 nor mention the value of Bond Certificate but prayed interest @ 15% per annum on US-64 Bond Certificate No. 6025749 vide ID 33923345 w.e.f. 01-06-2008 till renewal is made and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental shock, harassment etc.
- Anyhow, from careful perusal of evidence on record and other materials on record, it is of opinion that the complainant pledged the aforesaid Bond to secure her House Building Loan. So, the said Bond is in the custody of the O.P No.1. It is also undisputed fact that the said bond has been matured on 31-05-2008. But the complainant took a plea that he wanted to reinvest the maturity amount of Bond to the same scheme. For which she requested several times to the O.P to forward the said Bond to O.P No.2.
- The O.P No.1 did not admit the said fact of request except the fact of receiving the pleader’s notice dated 10-09-2011. It is also revealed from the W/S. and annexed documents in the W/S of O.P No.2 that the O.P No.1 made correspondence on 18-09-2011 and O.P No.2 replied on 07-11-2011. Not only that the O.P No.1 made further correspondent with O.P No.2 on 20-12-2011 for early action to send Redemption Form of Bond Certificate and Annexure 9 and 10 as required by the O.P No.2, So, from the above document and W/S it is revealed that on receiving the pleader’s notice the O.P No.1 did not remain with deaf hearing rather took some step for needful. But fact remain that, the Bond has not yet reinvested for non-furnishing the required documents from the ends of the O.P No.1.
- But in the instant case before giving opinion regarding disservice of the O.P, it is required to establish by the complainant as whether he attempted to inform the O.P No.1 to take needful for reinvestment of maturity amount of the Bond prior to the date of maturity on 31-05-2008. In that aspect the complainant deposed that he requested several times to forward the Bond to O.P No.2 for reinvestment. The O.P No.1 denied the said plea. So, it is the burden of the complainant to establish the fact specifically as when or on which date she requested the O.P No.1. Whether she requested prior to the date of maturity of the bond. From evidence on record, we do not find any material to conclude that on a particular date prior to the date of maturity or even on the date of maturity on 31-05-2008 and on any subsequent date requested the O.P verbally to do needful for reinvestment. Nothing convincingly to conclude that prior to the date of issuing of pleader’s notice he requested the O.P to forward the Bond. The advocates notice vide Ext.1 does not give clear picture as whether she request the O.P No.1 on a specific date prior to the date of maturity of the bond or on the date of maturity of the bond or any subsequent date. Rather from the evidence on record, it is revealed that on 10-09-2011 i.e. after expiring of more than 2 (two) years from the date of maturity of Bond, the pleader notice issued without assigning any specified date of verbal request to O.P No.1.
- But in the instant case if the Bond is still in the custody of the O.P No.1, it can be obviously opined that the Bond is lying idle without fetching any more interest.
- Hence, in our considered view at least from date of receiving the Ext.1 pleaders notice the O.P No.1 is responsible for non-complying the requirement as stated by the O.P No.2 in the W/S. The bonds maturity amount can be reinvested at any subsequent date with the co-operation and needful step of the O.P No.1 because the Bond is under pledged with the O.P No.1. As the complainant did not get the maturity amount and the O.P No.1 did not take any plea that maturity amount of bond is received by the Bank in the meantime and adjusted with balance amount of House Building Loan, so, we are of view that the maturity amount is remain idle with O.P No.2 and O.P No.2 is unable to release the same due to the non-submitting the relevant documents as required. The O.P No.2 also in its W/S very clearly stated in Para’15’ that the O.P No.2 has not yet released the said Bond Certificate till date.
- Therefore, in this case at least from the date of receiving the pleaders notice i.e. Ext.1 the fresh cause of action has been arisen and as such the complaint is taken into consideration against the O.P No.1 because the complaint lodged on 21-11-2011 i.e. within the period of limitation from the date of receiving the pleaders notice by the O.P No.1.
- Therefore, due to disservice of the O.P No.1 the complainant suffered monetary loss of both not receiving interest on bond and not able to get the re-maturity amount on reinvestment. Thus, in our considered view, it would be justifiable to give direction to the O.P No.1 to do all formalities immediately to reinvest the maturity value of aforesaid Bond for further period as desire by the complainant or as per law whichever is shorter period. The O.P is also directed to pay compensation for disservice including for mental agony for the complainant of Rs.15,000/- and cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/-. The O.P No.1 is also directed to pay interest @ 10% P.A. on the amount of Bond w.e.f. the date issuing of the pleaders notice on 10-09-2011 till to the date of reinvestment of the maturity amount because date of receiving the pleaders notice is not disclosed by the O.P No.1. As the fact regarding verbal request is not established, so, this District Forum is not inclined to burdened the O.P No.1 to pay interest of maturity amount of bond w.e.f. 31-05-2008.
- With the above, it is further directed the O.P No.1 to satisfy the award within 45 days from today. In default, the O.P No.1 is to pay interest @ 10% per annum on awarded amount which includes maturity value of Bond.
- With the above, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 24th day of August, 2017. | |
