Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/71/2019

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Yugansh Siwach Adv. & Rupinder Pal Kaur Adv.

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	71 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	11.02.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	19.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Inderjit Singh s/o Sh.Harbhajan, R/o House No.238, Phase-1, Near Guruduara Singh Sabha, Mohali, Punjab 160055

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 through its CEO/Managing Director/Authorised Signatory Sh.Rakesh Sharma

2]  IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.119-120, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh through its CEO/Managing Director/authorized Signatory/Branch Manager Ms.Guneet Kaur

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant : Complainant in person

For OP(s)       : Sh.Sahil Singla and Sh.Sumit Narang, Counsel    

                   of OP

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Deep Discount Bond (Series-1) Folio No.DD01081235 from Opposite Parties on 31.3.1992 at an issue price of Rs.2700/- having face value of Rs.1,00,000/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2). The said Bond was to mature after a period of 25 years and the OPs was to pay the maturity value of Rs.1 lacs.  It is averred that the Deep Discount Bond held by complainant matured on 31.3.2017, as such complainant applied for the maturity value of said Bond on April, 2017, in response to which the OPs vide letter dated 28.4.2017 offered lesser maturity amount of Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.One lakh on account of some early redemption and also sought certain documents from the complainant (Ann.C-6). It is submitted that the complainant completed all the documentations as desired by the OPs and also submitted the original Bond with Op No.2 on 13.6.2017 as well as Form No.15G (Ann.C-11).  However, despite completing all the formalities, the complainant has not been paid the maturity amount of Rs.One lakh by the OPs.  A legal notice dated 23.1.2019 was also sent to OPs in this regard but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, submitted that the Deep Discount Bond floated by them in the year 1992 at the issue price of Rs.2700/-, was having face value of Rs.1,00,000/- if redeemed at the end of 25 years.  It is also submitted the said bonds could also be redeemed at the end of every five year from 31.3.1992 either at the option of the bank or at the option of the bond holder and it is so mentioned in the bond itself.  It is stated that the OPs while exercising the opton of redemption of bonds afer 10 years i.e. on 31.3.2002, when the deemed face value of the bond was Rs.12000/- IDBI invited a call option to all the investors by exercising its option to redeem the bonds. It is stated that intimation about redemption exercise was also sent to the complainant at the given address and the public notice was also published in the leading newspaper across the country from time to time.  It is pleaded that the said public notice was published on 20.8.2001 in Financial Express i.e. 6 months prior to the redemption of the bond which was redeemed on 31.3.2002 (Ann.R-3), in Indian Express dated 19.8.2001 (Ann.R-4), in Jansatta dated 19.8.2001 (Ann.R-5) and Hindustan Times dated 19.8.2001 (Ann.R-6).  It is also pleaded that subsequently the OPs sent individual notices to all the bondholders including the complainant regarding exercise of call option and said notice was sent through UCP on the given address of the complainant (Ann.R-7 & R-8).  It is further pleaded that OPs also informed regarding exercise of call option in leading newspaper in the year 2006, 2010, 2011 in Indian Express, Chandigarh, Indian Express, Delhi, Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh, The Tribune, Chandigarh etc. (Annexure R-9 to R-16).  It is submitted that as per record of OPs, the address of complainant is H.No.94, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, but he did not inform or communicated to the OPs about change of his address of H.No.238, Phase-1, Near Guruduara Singh Sabha, Mohali. It is also submitted that the documents submitted by the complainant were rejected on 18.12.2017 as he failed to submit the required documents i.e. Pan Card and cancelled cheque with Ops (Ann.R-17). Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]       It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant invested Rs.2700/- in Deep Discount Bond (Series-I) of OPs on 31.3.1992 whereupon Bond Ann.C-1 was issued and it was to mature after 25 years on 31.3.2017 with its face value/maturity value of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the bondholder/complainant.

 

6]       The plea of the OPs that they had opted to redeem the bond in the year 2001, so they are liable to pay only redemption amount of Rs.12,000/- with interest thereon @3.5% per annum against the said bond to the complainant, is totally untenable and not permissible under law of equity and fair play. 

 

7]       The complainant has invested his hard earned money with OPs believing their promise of its maturity after 25 years. The Deep Discount Bond itself reflects that the investment made by the complainant is for long terms period.  The deal in the shape of investment bond entered into between the investor/complainant and the OP company, cannot unilaterally be nullified by the OP Company causing financial loss to the former/investor.  The OPs cannot be permitted to back off from their commitment taking a unilateral decision causing loss to a consumer and thus their indiscriminate decision to redeem the bond upon the bondholder is illegally & unjustified.

 

8]       Moreover there is no concrete and authentic document to establish that the complainant/bondholder was ever properly intimated about the alleged redemption of bonds.  There is no document to show the sincere efforts of the OPs to successfully communicate the redemption notice to the complainant/bondholder except newspaper cutting which only raise a presumption but it cannot be accepted as concrete proof of communication. In our opinion the OPs cannot escape from their liability merely by publishing an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise its option.

 

9]       Furthermore, the plea of OPs that communication was sent through UPC is also not tenable and considered as an authentic document especially in the absence of its acknowledgement duly signed by complainant. The OPs failed to clarify as to why the notice/communication to complainant was not sent through registered post instead of UPC to have authentic information qua its delivery.  In any case the Complainant kept invested his hard earned money for 25 long years in order to get maturity value and the OP Company has certainly utilized the said amount and earned profit, so they cannot be allowed to deny benefit to the complainant.  Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade on the part of OPs is writ large.

 

10]      Taking into consideration the findings aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs NO.1 & 2 has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as under:-

1. To pay the maturity amount of Rs.One Lakh to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. after the date of maturity i.e. 1.4.2017 till its actual realization.

 

b)  To pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for the harassment, mental agony and loss caused to him due to their deficient service coupled with unfair trade practice, along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.