Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/375

KIRAN BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                         Date of Decision : 1.10.2015

                        Date of arguments heard : 17.9.2015

First Appeal No. 375/2011

(Setting aside the order dated 30.6.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.147/2008 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum – II, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi)

In the matter of

Smt. Kiran Bansal

R/o B-76, Suraj Mal Vihar

Delhli-110092

……Appellant

Versus

 

1. Industrial Development Bank of India

Through its Chairman,

Branch Office Delhi

1, Red Cross Road,

          New Delhi-110001

 

                                                                                   

2. Investor Services of India Ltd.

Through its managing Director

IDBI Building 2^nd floor ‘A’ Wing

Sector 11, Plot No. 39, 40, 41

CBD Belapur, Navi

Mumbai-400614

 

•  

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Aggrieved by order dated 2.5.11/20.5.11 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi dismissing the complaint of the appellant, the present appeal has been filed.  In short the case of the appellant is that she purchased three flexi bonds having purchase price of Rs.5,300/- each with  face value of Rs.25,000/- each, on 18.1.96. The wait period was 10 years.  OP-1 promised to pay monthly income for a period of 10 years @ Rs.312.50 p.m. starting from December 1, 2006. The holder of the Bond and OP-1 had the option to redeem the Bond on August 1, 2000.  In that case, the liabilities was to stand extinguished.  When the complainant did not receive payment till 19.1.07, she wrote a letter reminding OP-1 about the promise for payment. OP-2 vide its letter dated 12.2.07 informed the complainant that OP-1 had exercised options by giving notice dated 18.3.01.  Complainant was to surrender the original Bound duly discharged alongwith redemption application and Form-15G in duplicate.  The complainant protested the same vide letter dated 12.6.07 and told the OPs that she did not receive notice dated 25.5.2000 or notice dated 18.3.01. Then OPs replied via e-mail dated 2.3.07 that redemption notice have been sent to all the Bond holders in the form of U.P.C. in the last week of May, 2000 and had also given public notice in all  the leading newspapers with a subsequent reminders. Out of 19 lacs investors, approximately 18.10 lacs investors had taken back their money within due date i.e. 1.9.2000.  The maturity amount of the Bond by that time had become Rs.10,000/- per Bond without tax.  The grievances of the complainant was that OP-1 has not paid over due interest from 1.8.2000 to 16.8.07 on Rs.30,000/- which was the maturity value of three Bonds. She prayed for overdue interest  at the same rate at which the OP paid for a period from 18.3.96 to 1.8.2000 alongwith appropriate damages for mental tension and harassment and also Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.         The OPs filed joint reply stating that as per offer documents, OP-1 had right to exercise call option on 1.8.2000.  It exercised the same and offered redemption of the Bonds by paying Rs.10,000/- for each Bond.  Besides giving individual notice to the Bond holders as per the practice, call option notice were also published in the leading newspapers like Financial Express, Jan Satta dated 11.5.2000 and in Danik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, Delhi Edition of Times of India and Hindu dated 10..5.2000.  Vide the call option notice dated 9.5.2000 Bond holders have been informed to surrender duly discharged Bond certificate to OP-2 by July 15, 2000.  It was mentioned that no interest would be payable on the Bonds beyond August 1, 2000. Reminder notice was published in leading National newspapers on October 7, 2000.
3.         The Ld. District Forum had led that even if the complainant is believed that he did not receive notice sent by U.P.C. , there can be no escape from the fact that call upon notice published twice in the leading newspapers. Her plea that she did not read or buy any newspapers was no help to her.  Accordingly the complaint was dismissed.
4.         We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
5.         The appellant had relied upon the decision in Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) SCC 445 before the District Forum.  Copy of the said has not been made available by the appellant for perusal by this Commission. Any how the same pertains to election petition. She also relied upon decision in B. Haarish Chandra Vs. Academy of General Education 1995 LLR 420. Again the same has not been made available.
6.         The complainant also relied upon decision of State Commission, Delhi in FA No.837/2006 titled as DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti to make that publication in newspaper can not  substitute personal service.  It may be mentioned that the complainant had relied upon the over ruled decision. The said decision was set aside by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.800/2009 titled as DDA Vs. Sunil Bharti decided on 13.8.09.
7.         In appeal before us the complainant had relied upon decision of  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3465/2009 titled as Smruti Pahariya Vs. Sanjay Pahariya decided on 11.5.2009.  That is a case under Hindu Marriage Act and based upon provision of order 5 rule 20 CPC. In that case individual party has to be served personally and substituted service can be directed only when the party avoid service. That is not feasible in case of general notice to person running in lacs.
8.         Appellant has also relied upon decision in CC No.330/2007 titiled as Smt. M. Hymavathi, Vs. Manager, IDBI Bank and Others decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad on 24.7.07.  That is not a precedent.
9.         On the other hand, the Ld. District Forum has rightly relied upon the decision of National Commission in the matter of T. Subbian Vs. The Branch Manager, Canera bank I (2001) CPJ 43 in which it was held that notice published in newspaper calling upon the party to redeem respective securities is valid.
10. Apart from that, this Commission in FA No.483/2011 titled as Sh. Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank  Ltd. Decided on 9.9.13 had taken a similar view and upheld the order of the District Forum, dismissing in the complaint.
11. In view of the decision of the National Commission is on all the four corners of the case in hand, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
14. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)

 

ak