DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 100 of 2010 Date of Inst: 19.02.2010 Date of Decision:. 14.09.12010 Smt.Chanda Soni wife of Shri Arun Kumar r/o H.No.1302/11, Phase-XI, SAS Nagar(Mohali). ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. ICICI Bank Limited, 3i Infotech Limited Towner No.5, 3rd Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai. 2. ICICI Bank Limited, SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. Sh.Munish Jain, Adv. for OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Chanda Soni has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay a Rs.1,00,000/- being the full amount of bond on 27.05.2022. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.46,000/- as compensation for harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in March 1997, She purchased one Deep Discount Bond certificate for a sum of Rs.2750/- having face value of Rs.1,00,000/- on its maturity i.e. on 27.05.2022. According to the complainant, She needed money for some domestic work. So she approached the OP-2 for the early redemption of the said bond. Initially employee of OP kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or other. On her persistent requests, OP-2 sent a letter dated 14.01.2010 informing that the complainant is entitled to redeem the bond at its face value of Rs.6035/- only because OP had exercised its re-call option on 27.05.2003. The complainant was also informed that the scheme has already been closed. According to the complainant, she never received any notice/communication regarding closure of the scheme. It has further been pleaded that the act and conduct of OPs of offering a sum of Rs.6035/- after a gap of about 13 years amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, the factum of purchase of Deep Discount Bond certificate by the complainant has been admitted. According to OPs, the complainant has deliberately concealed the fact that OPs had the right of early redemption of the bonds at their deemed face value on the specified dates as mentioned below: | Deemed Face value (Rs.) | Early redemption from the deemed date of allotment | Relevant date | Option –I (25 years) Rs. | Option -II (20) years) Rs. | Option -III (15 years) Rs. | Option -IV (10 years) Rs. | 6 years | 27.05.2003 | 6400/- | 13385/- | 27350/- | 56325/- | 12 years | 27.05.2009 | 15150/- | 31680/- | 64750/- | | 18 years | 27.05.2015 | 35900/- | 75000/- | | |
According to OPs, it exercised its option on 27.05.2003 and advised all the bond holders by publishing notices in leading newspapers i.e. Financial Express (including its Chandigarh edition) dated 26.11.2002 and 26.03.2003 (Annexure OP-3 (Colly.) to surrender the duly discharged bond certificates on or before 15.04.2003. OPs also sent reminders to those bond holders who had not surrendered the bond certificates vide letter dated 23.06.03, 08.04.2004, 11.05.2006, 26.03.08 and 14.01.2010 (Annexure OP-4 (colly.). According to the OPs, it does not maintain the record of the letters sent to the bond holders and all the letters were sent to the bond holders by ordinary post. It has further been pleaded that earlier letters prior to 26.03.2008 were sent to the complainant at the address i.e. Mrs.Chanda Soni, C/o Shri Bajaj Kishore Prasad at Mahadewa, Near Shiv Temple, Siwan District Siwan Bihar 841 226. It has further been pleaded by OPs that the complainant has not surrendered the duly discharged bond certificates and therefore, as per clause No.6 of the terms and conditions of the bond certificates, the company liability to such bond holders toward all their rights including payment or otherwise stands extinguished from the date of early redemption in all events and on the Company dispatching the early redemption amount to the bond holders. According to OPs, as per the order of RBI dated 28.02.2008, the company is only liable to pay interest on the saving banks rate on all unclaimed deposits. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. Annexure C-1 is the photocopy of Deep Discount Bond certificate purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2750/- having face value of Rs.1 lac as on 27.05.2022. It has further been stipulated in the said bonds that the holders of the bond and IDBI have an option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of every six years from 27.05.2003 for the deemed face value of Rs.6400/- at the end of 6 years and Rs.31,680/- at the end of 12 years, Rs.75,000/- at the end of 18 years 6. As per the terms and conditions of the bond, even the ICICI (OPs) had option of “recall” after every six years. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that OPs exercised its recall option on 27.05.2003 at the face value of Rs.6400/- per bond. The factum of exercise of recall option is proved from the various advertisements published in Financial Express (including its Chandigarh edition) dated 26.11.2002 and 26.03.2003 (Annexure OP-3 (Colly.). There is no illegality in exercise of recall option. 7. The case of the complainant is that no intimation regarding exercise of recall option was ever given to her by the OPs, therefore, she could not redeem the bonds and could not avail the money at that time. The amount admittedly has remained with OPs and the complainant had no opportunity to use the same profitably. On the other hand, the case of OPs is that proper intimation was given to the complainant regarding exercise of the said recall option. According to OPs, the factum of exercising the recall option was published in Financial Express including its Chandigarh edition. Further individual letters were also sent to all holders of bonds including the complainant. OPs have failed to place on record any document except the letter dated 14.01.2010 which was sent through registered post to prove that any intimation of recall was ever given to the complainant by post. 8. Faced with this situation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that it had sent many reminders to the bond holders who had not surrendered the bond certificates vide letters dated 23.06.03, 08.04.2004, 11.05.2006, 26.03.08 and 14.01.2010 (Annexure OP-4 (colly.) but OPs have failed to place on record any document to prove the dispatch of the said letter or receipt of the said letters by the complainant or her agent. So the document placed on record by OPs are not sufficient to prove that the said letters were ever received by the complainant. 9. It was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OPs that in view of Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it would be presumed that the said letters were received by the complainant. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance in the case titled as Dalip Singh Gosain Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in IV(2008) CPJ-412. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that communication under UPC is an accepted mode of postal communication. In support of this contention, she has placed reliance upon the case titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. Narinder Pal and Others, reported in 2007(3) RCR (Civil)-52. There is no dispute about the law laid down in these authorities that communication under UPC is an accepted mode of communication and there is presumption of receipt of the letter after a specific period. However, in the present case, OPs have failed to prove that any letter was dispatched to the complainant. As mentioned above, no evidence has been produced to prove the dispatch of the said letters or receipt of the same by the complainant. In these circumstances, the ratio of cases cited above would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Faced with this situation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that publication in the newspapers is a sufficient means of communication and it will be presumed that the complainant had come to know about the exercise of the recall option by OPs. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is contrary to the view expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as IDBI Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. T.K.Nagarathna reported in 2009(1) CLT-108 (NC) in which it has been held that the petitioner (OPs) was not liable to escape its liability merely by publishing an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise its option. 11. Thus from the evidence on record, it is not proved that communication to the complainant was complete. Admittedly, the amount was not sent to the complainant and the amount remained with the OPs. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot be denied interest as has been pleaded in the written statement filed by OPs. 12. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to redeem the Deep Discount Bond certificate having the face value Rs.6400/- as on 27.05.2003 along with interest @ 9 % from the date 27.05.2003 till its realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 13. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.6400/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from 27.05.2003 till its realization besides costs of litigation of Rs.5000/-. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14.09.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
