JUDGMENT

                                                             7.1.2010

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by  opposite parties  is directed against the  order dated 15.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby the complaint bearing No.1522 of 2008  filed by Dr. Saraswati Gupta, respondent /complainant was allowed  in the following terms ;  

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OPs retained the amount of Rs.9,600 x 2 = Rs.19,200/-  since 1.2.2002 till 27.6.2008 when the amount was actually paid to the complainant.   The OPs are, therefore, bound to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.19,200/- @ 8% per annum for the said period. The amount shall be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.12.2008 till its payment alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,500/-.  ”

2.         The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

              The    complainant had purchased Two Deep Discount Bonds bearing certificate  Nos.00394101 & 00394102 of Rs.2500 each in the year 1993.  The face value  of those bonds as mentioned in the bond certificate was Rs.1.00 lac each  as on 1.1.2018.  The complainant had  option to get  encashed  the said bonds at the end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th or 20th year as per their face values at the end of every such year.  It was alleged that   on 27.6.2008 when complainant visited OPs, she was informed that the  scheme in question had been cancelled, so she should withdraw her amount. Accordingly the complainant applied for the encashment of her bonds. Thereafter,  she received two cheques of Rs.17,752/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.7752) issued by OPs  and    the interest  paid  on the principal amount of said bonds  was only for the period from 1993 till 2002 whereas it should have been paid till June, 2008, the date on which it was withdrawn as the amount was being utilized by the OPs  upto that period.  The OPs  had neither informed the complainant that the scheme had been cancelled and she should withdraw her amount, nor on the cancellation of scheme the OPs sent the deposited amount with interest at the address of complainant.   The complainant then sought the proof/document from OPs whereby she was informed about the cancellation of said scheme but OPs failed to supply  the same.  Alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice  on the part of OPs, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 

4.         On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Consumer Forum was that   the option of early encashment/ redemption was available to both the parties i.e. the Issuer (Call option) and the Holder (Put Option) at the end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th and 20th year and therefore, the   OPs had exercised the call option in the 9th year, as per the terms & conditions of the offer document.  It is also stated that as per the terms & conditions of the offer document of said bonds, the OPs were required to announce its intention of compulsorily redeeming the Deep Discount Bonds at the end of the stipulated period from the date of allotment, in one English and one Hindi daily newspaper and also communicate to all the registered holders of the bonds at least 6 months in advance and accordingly, OPs published a public notice in all the leading national & regional dailies i.e. Dainik Jagran  dated 1.7.2001, Times of India  dated 2.7.2001 & Dainik Bhaskar dated 1.7.2001  informing the Unit Holders as well as General Public about the call option.  Thereafter, the OPs issued individual letters along with Form 15H/15AA, under Certificate of Posting (UPC) on July 24, 2001 to all investors requesting them to surrender the duly discharged Bond Certificates for redemption.  Subsequently  letters dated 9.5.2005 and 3.7.2006   were also sent to remaining bond holders who  had failed to surrender their bond certificates  for redemption including the complainant.   The complainant had not surrendered the bond certificates well in time, therefore, she was not entitled to interest after the year 2002.   According to OPs, their liability  towards the complainant was limited to Rs.9600/- per bond which was duly paid to her.  

5.           The learned District Consumer Forum after  going through the evidence  and hearing the   learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the  opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have    come up in this appeal.

6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties  and also gone through the file   carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of OPs is that in fact at the time of closing the scheme  the due intimation was given to the registered bond holders through newspapers and also individual letters were sent to them  under certificate of posting (UPC). Individual intimation, if not received by the complainant that was not fault of OPs as her change of address was not intimated well in time.  At the fag end of his arguments, reference was also made to the copy of order annexure R-8 where in similar circumstances no relief was granted by the District Fora under the Consumer Protection Act to  the complainant. These points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant. 

7.         We have given our thoughtful consideration  to the rival contentions   putforth on behalf of the parties and find no force in  the above pleas taken on behalf of OPs, inasmuch-as at the first place, one of the terms and conditions of the offer document annexure R-1 between the parties reads as under ;

            “REDEMPTION/ WITHDRAWAL

              Deep Discount Bond

In the event of SIDBI deciding to compulsorily redeem the Deep Discount Bonds at the end of the 5th or 9th or 12th or 15th or 20th year from the date of allotment, it will announce its intention to do so in one English and one Hindi daily newspaper and also communicate to all the Registered holders of such bonds, atleast 6 months prior to the date of redemption.”

           A perusal of the above condition makes it mandatory upon OPs to give the due intimation about their intention of   compulsorily redeeming the Deep Discount Bonds by announcing in one English and Hindi newspaper  and also  communicate to all the registered holders of such bonds at least six months in advance.  Here in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the intimation was published in the newspapers but the same is not proved to have been sent  in any manner to the complainant as required under the terms and conditions of the offer document annexure R-1.

8.         Here it is also pertinent to mention that as per letter No.2055-56/UIPS dated 31.5.2006 issued by the University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Punjab University, Chandigarh complainant is shown to be working in the same department of which address she had furnished at the time of issuance of Deed Discount Bonds.  Admittedly the scheme was cancelled somewhere in the year 2001,so, there was no change of address during the relevant period when the intimation should have been sent by OPs. 

9.         Moreover, there is nothing on the file which could inspire confidence regarding sending of any intimation about the intention of OPs of compulsorily redeeming the Deed  Discount Bonds.  Further it is also evident that in the similar order annexure R-8 as relied upon by OPs, there was proof of giving intimation about the scheme to complainant whereas in the instant case before us there is no document on the file for having sent any intimation to the complainant. In this view of the matter, OPs cannot be allowed to evade  their liability of paying interest over the amount of Deep Discount Bonds  held by complainant till they utilized the same which has been rightly assessed at Rs.9600/- each.   

10.                In the result, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.3000/-.    

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.