Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/282/2023

IDBI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDERJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

Tajender K. Joshi Adv.

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	282 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	05.03.2024

 

1. IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Mumbai 400005 through its Authorised Signatory Sh.Kanwaldeep Sharma
2. IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.119-120, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh through its authorized Signatory/Branch Manager Sh. Kanwaldeep Sharma.

   …Appellants/opposite parties

V e r s u s

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

…..Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:-     

 

Sh. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants (on VC).

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   The opposite parties (appellants herein) have assailed the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint bearing no.71 of 2019 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed  against them and they were directed as under:- 

“…. 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.
2. 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.……”

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the  complainant-respondent that he had purchased Deep Discount Bond (Series-1) Folio No.DD01081235 from the opposite parties on 31.3.1992 @ Rs.2700/- having face value of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said Bond was to mature after a period of 25 years.  It was averred that the Deep Discount Bond held by the complainant matured on 31.3.2017, as such, he applied for the maturity value of said Bond on April, 2017. However, in response thereto, the opposite parties  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. The complainant completed all the documentations as desired by the opposite parties and also submitted the original Bond with opposite party 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 opposite parties.  Legal notice dated 23.1.2019 served upon the opposite parties in the matter also did not yield any result. Hence, complaint was filed before the District Commission by the complainant. 
3.           The opposite parties-appellants contested the complaint by filing written version, wherein it was stated that 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, which fact was mentioned in the bond itself.  It was stated that the opposite parties while exercising the option of redemption of bonds after 10 years i.e. on 31.3.2002, when the deemed face value of the bond was Rs.12,000/-,  invited a call option to all the investors by exercising its option to redeem the bonds. 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.  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).  Subsequently the opposite parties sent individual notices to all the bondholders including the complainant regarding exercise of call option and said notice was sent through UPC on the given address of the complainant. The opposite parties 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. As per record of the opposite parties, the address of complainant is H.No.94, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, but he did not inform/communicate to the opposite parties about change of his address of H.No.238, Phase-1, Near Guruduara Singh Sabha, Mohali. 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 the opposite parties. Hence prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all his averments and controverted those of the opposite parties.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. 
7.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record; including the written arguments filed by the appellants, very carefully.
8.           Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it may be stated here that there is a delay of 16 days (as per the office 28 days) in filing the present appeal, for condonation whereof, miscellaneous application bearing No.805 of 2023 has been filed alongwith the appeal. Neither any reply has been filed by the respondent nor has the application been contested at the time of final arguments. The parties made arguments on merits of the case. The reasoning for delay in filing the appeal, given in the application, is duly supported by an affidavit. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by duly sworn affidavit and in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellants have shown rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. As such, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. MA/805/2023 stands disposed of accordingly.
9.           After going through the record of this case and also the arguments of the parties, it has been noticed by this  Commission that the case of the appellants  solely rests upon the defence taken by them to the effect that they had exercised the option of redemption of bonds after 10 years i.e. on 31.3.2002, when the deemed face value of the bond was Rs.12000/-  by inviting a call option to all the investors after issuance of  public notice in the leading newspaper across the country from time to time and also  by way of sending individual notices to all the bondholders including the complainant in that regard, through UPC on his given address. 
10.           First coming to the defence taken by the appellants that they had exercised the option of redemption of bonds after 10 years i.e. on 31.3.2002, when the deemed face value of the bond was Rs.12000/-, by inviting a call option to all the investors by issuance of public notice in the leading newspaper across the country from time to time, it may be stated here that appellants have miserably failed to prove that the said newspaper(s) were ever circulated in the locality where the complainant used to reside at the relevant point of time. Under these circumstances, this defence taken by the appellants is of no help to them. The District Commission was also right in holding so.
11.           Now coming to the second defence taken by the appellants that the individual notice qua redemption of bonds after 10 years was also given to the complainant through UPC on his given address, it may be stated here that the appellants have failed to place on record even a single document to prove that the said notice through UPC has either been received by the respondent or it has been returned back due to any incorrect/changed address. The law is very clear that acknowledgement is a must to prove delivery of any document through UPC. Since, in the present case, the respondent has specifically denied regarding receipt of aforesaid notice sent through UPC, as such, the onus was upon the appellants to prove that the said notice has actually been delivered to the respondent or not, which they have miserably failed to do so.
12.                    In order to wriggle out of the situation, the appellants have also contended that it may be on account of shifting of address by the respondent, which was not brought to their knowledge, that the said notice might not have been received by the respondent, yet, in our considered opinion this contention is also of no help to them because had the said notice been not delivered to the respondent on account of issue of some address, then the same would have definitely been received back by the appellants. However, the appellants have failed to place on record any documentary evidence to prove that on account of wrong address/shifting the said notice had been received back by them. Be that as it may, the appellants/opposite parties miserably failed to prove on record by way of any cogent and convincing evidence or acknowledgment establishing delivery of the aforesaid letter/notice to the respondent/complainant. .
13.           It may be stated here that a similar  controversy  qua issuance of  redemption notice through newspaper and also through UPC has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as IDBI Bank Limited Vesus Surjit Kaur, Revision Petition No. 179 Of 2020, Decided On 17 August 2023 wherein it has been held that if the redemption notice is published through newspapers, without its circulation in the area where the bond holders are residing  and also the same is sent through UPC, it will not be presumed to be served upon the bond holders. The bond holders were held entitled for entire maturity amount upto the full life of maturity of the bonds.
14.           Since, the facts of the present case are similar to that of facts of the case IDBI Bank Limited Versus Surjit Kaur (supra) as such, the principle of law laid down therein is fully applicable to the present case also. The District Commission was thus right in allowing the consumer complaint, ordering the appellants/opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1 lac to the respondent/complainant along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.  
15.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order impugned passed by the District Commission allowing the consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
17.           Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
18.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith
19.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

05.03.2024

 

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Ad/-