STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Appeal No.180 of 2010) Date of Institution: 03.05.2010 Date of Decision : 10.11.2010 1. The I.D.B.I. Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, W.T.C. Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 through its Manager. 2. The I.D.B.I Bank Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ……Appellants V e r s u sCol. Pritam Singh (Retd.) S/o Late Sh. Santokh Singh R/o H.No.651, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh. ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Pritam Singh, respondent in person. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This is OP’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.3.2010, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the OPs were directed to pay to the complainant Rs.12,000/- per bond along with interest @18% per annum from 31.3.2002 till its realization along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The complainant had invested an amount of Rs.2,700/- in each of four Deep Discount Bonds (Annexures C-1 to C-4) issued by the OPs on 29.4.2009. He received a letter from the OPs intimating to him that they had exercised call option on 31.3.2002 and issued redemption notice dated 30.9.2001 to all the bond holders advising them to surrender the fully discharged bond certificates and that no interest would be payable after 31.3.2002. According to the complainant, he never received any such notice from the OPs. He, therefore, prayed for a sum of Rs.48,000/- along with interest @18% per annum till the payment and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The complaint was opposed by the OPs/appellants alleging that as per the Scheme of Deep Discount Bonds, they were competent to exercise the call option regarding which publication was issued in the English and regional newspapers across India on 19.8.2001 and individual intimation under Certificate of Posting was also sent to all the investors including the complainant. It was alleged that after 31.3.2002, no interest was payable on the bonds, that reminder notices were issued in this respect subsequently also but the complainant did not deposit the duly discharged certificates and therefore, no payment was made to him. The OPs, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.3.2010 as mentioned in Para No.1 of the order above, which has been challenged by the OPs through this appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased four Deep Discount Bonds from the OPs, which provided that the OPs could exercise the call option to make the payment of the bonds on fixed dates and the amount mentioned against each date as given in the bonds itself. It was argued that the OPs had issued advertisement in newspapers, copies of which have been placed on file and as per the Scheme, the complainant was entitled to Rs.12,000/- for each bond at the end of 10 years period i.e. 31.3.2002. In addition to the publication in the newspapers, OPs were to send individual notices to the investors including the complainant. They claimed to have sent a notice under U.P.C vide list (Annexure R-1). The name of the complainant finds mention at Serial No.206024. A perusal of Annexure R-1, however, shows that there is no certificate issued by the Postal Authorities regarding the notice having been sent by them. It is only a single page of a list and there is no stamp of the Postal Authorities thereon. It is not a proof of the notice having been put into motion and therefore, it cannot be said that individual notice was issued or served on the complainant. The complainant has submitted his affidavit alleging that he had never received any such notice. It is also worth mentioning that the complainant had been residing at the same address since the purchase of the bonds. Had he received the notice, there would have been no reason why he should not have got the bonds encashed at that time as he has come forward now on receipt of reminders. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the bonds had not been redeemed properly by the OPs and their contention in this respect was rightly rejected by the learned District Forum. 8. Since the amount of bonds remained with the OPs, they are liable to pay interest thereon. The interest otherwise payable on the bonds in view of the scheme is much higher than 18% per annum. However, as claimed by the complainant, the learned District Forum has awarded interest @18% per annum, which cannot be said to be excessive. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 10. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 10th November 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION(Appeal No.180 of 2010) Argued by: Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Pritam Singh, respondent in person. Dated the 11th day of November, 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
