IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 21-10 DATED 01.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sadashiva.S., S/o Subbachar, No.10, APMC Complex, Sheshadri Iyer Road, Mysore-570021.<br /> (By Sri. R.R.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005.<br /> 2. The Deputy General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005.<br /> 3. IDBI Bank Ltd., Mysore Branch, MIG 11, Saraswathipuram, V.M.Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570009.<br /> (By Sri. S.U., , Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 19.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 03.02.2010<br /> Date of order : 01.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 28 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. in respect of the amount invested in the bonds.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant is the holder of discount bond (1996) bearing certificate No.00755047 for Rs.5,300/. The complainant received letter dated 29.04.2009 from second opposite party stating that, bond has already been redeemed on 01.08.2000 and in spite of the intimation, bond has not been submitted for redemption. But, the complainant has not received any intimation from the opposite parties at any point of time. Complainant replied stating that, he has not received any letters earlier. On 13.08.2009, complainant received another communication from the opposite parties instructing to surrender the bond duly discharged by 31.07.2009. The letter is dated 04.07.2009, posted on 07.08.2009 instructing the complainant to surrender the bond by 31.07.2009. By the said letter, opposite parties informed that the complainant is entitled for interest only at the rate of 3.5 compounded quarterly from 01.08.2008, which is illegal, unilateral, arbitrary and oppressive. As stated in the bond, complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- as on 01.09.2011. Complainant sent notice dated 17.11.2009 to the second opposite party. It was not complied, but untenable reply was sent. The acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and also, unfair trade practice. The complainant suffered mentally and monetarily. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties in the version admitted that, the complainant is holder of the bond as well as the terms and conditions. However, narrating certain facts, it is contended that, the complainant is not a consumer and if there is any service, it is free of charge or under contract of personal service. Hence, complaint is not maintainable. Then, it is contended that, there is no cause of action. In 5th paragraph of the version, terms and conditions of the bond are quoted and accordingly, it is submitted that, opposite party exercised their right to call to redeem the bond and intimated the complainant in the year 2000 itself and also that fact was published in the newspapers. In 9th paragraph it is contended that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the 10th paragraph it is stated that, opposite parties are ready to pay redemption amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 3.5% quarterly compounded from 01.08.2000. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and for the opposite parties, AGM and Head-Customer Care Centre of the opposite parties has filed his affidavit. Certain documents are produced. We have heard both the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The contention of the opposite parties that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint needs to be considered first. Though, first and second opposite parties are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The third opposite party branch is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In 9th paragraph of the version, it is contended that, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, it is stated that, the complainant cannot confer jurisdiction on the Forum making the third opposite party as party to the proceedings. Order of Hon’ble Divisional Forum, Jammu between Susheela Vs. IDBI and another dated 30.11.2000 is relied upon.<br /> <br /> 8. So far concerned to the order of the Hon’ble Jammu Commission, grievance in that case was the complainant did not receive one of the bonds for which he had applied. Hence, it has been held that, the complaint shall have to be filed, where the bonds were to be allotted. But, in the case on hand, there is no question of allotment of bond or it is not the grievance of the complainant that, bond was not allotted by the bank. As noted above, the grievance is regarding payment of value of the bond.<br /> <br /> 9. It is fact that, third opposite party is the branch of the first opposite party. It is suffice to note that, in one of the letters written by the first opposite party to the complainant dated 04.07.2009 there is specific direction to surrender the bond certificate duly discharged to any branch of IDBI bank. Hence, the complainant in addition to requesting the first opposite party situated at Mumbai also approaching the third opposite party branch, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In spite of the request made, the value of the bond has not been paid to the complainant. That gave cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint. Hence, atleast part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.<br /> <br /> 10. Now, coming to consider the contention of the opposite parties that, the complainant is not a consumer, admittedly, the complainant has invested certain amount in the bonds of the opposite parties bank and it is banking business or transaction. Considering the definition of the ‘consumer’ and various decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, the complainant being customer of the opposite party bank, is a ‘consumer’. As regards the contention that the service rendered is free of charge, considering the facts it is clear that at relevant point of time or even otherwise, it is well known that, the banks receive the fixed deposits agreeing to pay interest at particular rate, but definitely in case of lending, the rate will be more and thereby, the banks will be benefited. Hence, this contention of the opposite parties also will not sustained.<br /> <br /> 11. So far concerned to the terms and conditions of the bond, there is no dispute between the parties. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant-investor has right to surrender the bond and get the value at that point of time and so also, the opposite parties bank can given call option and till that date, the bank is liable to pay the value of the bond. In the case on hand, the opposite parties contend that, in the year 2000 itself right of call option was exercised and hence, thereafter, it is not liable to pay the value of the bond to the subsequent date or dates. Hence, in this regard, important point that needs to be considered is, whether the opposite parties have proved said right was exercised and that was duly communicated to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 12. For the opposite parties, two letters in that regard are produced. The complainant has denied receipt of those letters. Hence, in the absence of documents to prove that in fact the complainant has acknowledged the said notices, the contention of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Further contention of the opposite parties is that, many times in most of the newspapers the call option exercised was published and the investors were requested to surrender the bonds. In this regard, certain paper cuttings Xerox copies are produced. For the complainant, it is submitted that, he did not come to know about the said news published and if really, had come to know certainly in the normal course could have surrendered the bond. Also, learned advocate submitted that, many persons may not read the newspaper and if read, of their choiced subject and hence, it is submitted that, in the absence of personal service of the notice, the said news cannot be considered as notice to the complainant. We have no reasons to brush aside the said submission of the learned advocate. Hence, we have to hold that, the opposite parties have failed to prove the service of the letters of the year 2000.<br /> <br /> 13. Advocate for the complainant pointed out, how the opposite party bank works. There is a letter of opposite party dated 04.07.2009. It was posted on 07.08.2009. But, by that letter opposite party called upon the complainant to surrender the bond on 31.07.2009, that is impossible.<br /> <br /> 14. Now, coming to consider the material point, the opposite parties are ready to pay value of the bond taking into consideration of exercise of call option of Rs.10,000/- with future interest at the rate of 3.5%p.a. On the other hand, it is claimed by the complainant at the end of paragraph 6 of the complaint that, he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- on 01.09.2011. Now, we are in the year 2010. Hence, if that date is to be taken into consideration, then it is to be held that, the complaint is pre-mature. However, on receipt of the letter of the opposite parties dated 04.07.2009 the complainant has come forward to surrender the bond certificate and hence, as on the date when the complainant decided to surrender the bond, what value was of the bond, the complainant is entitled to. There is no dispute that, as on 01.08.2000 redemption value was Rs.10,000/- and as on 01.02.2006 Rs.25,000/-. As noted above, as on 01.08.2011 Rs.50,000/- but, we have not reached that date. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the value of the bond as on 01.12.2006 that is Rs.25,000/-. Though, opposite parties have stated that, they are ready to pay interest at the rate of 3.5% p.a., considering the present interest rate and other circumstances, we feel it just to grant interest at the rate of 9% pa. <br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- value of the bond in question as on 01.12.2006 and from that date till realization the interest at the rate of 9% p.a.<br /> 3. Within the 15 days from the date of this order, the complainant shall surrender the bond in question duly discharged. <br /> 4. The opposite parties as ordered above, shall pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the bond duly discharged from the complainant.<br /> 5. The opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day February 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />