PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 483 of 2011 Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased a DV account bond from the OP on 26.2.1992 for Rs.2700/-. Against the bond, OP undertook to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on 31.3.17. Complainant as well as OP, both, had option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of each 5 years w.e.f. 31.3.91 for the face value given therein. Complainant further alleged that he received letter dated 29.4.2009 from OP that OP had exercised call option on 31.3.2002 by issuing the redemption notice to the complainant on 30.9.01 to surrender duly discharged bond for release of Rs.12,000/- and redemption amount is still lying with the OP. Complainant denied receipt of notice and asked OP to pay him face value of the bond of Rs.25,000/- as due on 31.3.2009. OP informed the complainant that complainant may be paid interest @ 3.5% p.a. on quarterly compounding basis on the redemption amount of Rs.12,000/- from 31.3.2002 date of exercising option, but complainant refused. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested the complaint and submitted that intimation was given to the complainant under certificate of posting informing him to surrender the bond by 31.12.2001 for receiving the value and further intimated that no interest will be payable after 31.3.2002. It was further submitted that this intimation was published through various newspapers. Denying deficiency, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Perusal of record reveals that OP exercised option for redemption of bond and intimation was given to the complainant under certificate of posting and redemption notice was also published in various newspapers. Learned District Forum while dismissing complaint observed as under: n the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant cannot succeed to get redemption amount of Rs.25,000/- and other charges as prayed in the complaint. The redemption option of the bond as exercised by the IDBI was legal and the bank took enough measures to inform the bond holders by issuing Public Notice in leading Newspapers, regarding the redemption of the bond of the value as on 31.3.2002. The bond holders including the complainant were informed individually also by sending notice under UPC. The bank is to pay interest @ 3.5% p.a. on quarterly compoundable basis from 31.3.2002 on the redemption value of unclaimed bond. It is for the complainant to get the redemption value of his bond along with interest as per extended policy of the bank. He may submit the duly discharged bond to get the redemption amount with interest as referred above 5. Learned State Commission observed as under: The contention of the appellant is that he did not receive the communication from the bank dated 30.9.2007 is per se unacceptable, because he admits having received a subsequent communication dated 29.4.2009 on same address. Besides the bank issued Public Notice in various Newspapers, which has been said on the affidavit. The bank has also filed the postal receipt of certificate of posting of communication sent to the complainant. In the face of all this evidence, it cannot be said that the communication dated 30.9.2001 was not received by the complainant, and his plea in this regard cannot therefore be accepted. 6. In the light of aforesaid observations of District Forum and State Commission, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage as intimation had already been given to the petitioner regarding redemption. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.