Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/685/2014

Prem Chand Berwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Small scale Industries Devlopment Bank through Director - Opp.Party(s)

D.M.Mathur

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 685/2014

 

Prem Chand Bairwa r/o B 296, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Bhartiya Laghu Udyog Vikas Bank, SME Development Centre, Plot no. C-11,G Block ,Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through Managing Director & ors.

 

Date of Order 29.7.2015

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.D.M.Mathur counsel for the appellant

Mr. Arvind Gupta counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

2

 

learned DCF Jaipur 4^th dated 11.6.2014 by which the complaint was disallowed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant was allotted a bond of the face value of Rs.2500/- under the Deep Discount Bond (Series I ) of the respondent bank on 1.2.93. This bond was to be matured after 25 years for a value of Rs. 1 lakh. However, the holders of this bond had option to encash the bond at the end of 5^th/9^th/12^th/15^th/20^th year from February 1,1993 for the deemed face value of Rs.5300/-, Rs.9600/-, Rs.15,600/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. The respondent bank exercised its call option on 1.2.2002 and closed this scheme after nine years. The bond holders were informed to redeem the bond. The respondent bank submitted that it had issued notices to all bond holders. The complainant's case is that he never had any information of the closure of this scheme and when he applied for redemption after 15 years on 5.3.2008, he was informed of closure of the scheme. The complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of the bank. The learned DCF however assumed that notices were issued to the bond holders and the complainant failed to redeem his bond in the year 2002, hence he was not entitled for amount due after 15 years maturity.

3

 

We have heard the respective counsels and have considered their arguments and have perused the record.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent bank has argued that they had sent notices of closure of the scheme to every bond holder and a notification was also published in the newspaper but the complainant failed to surrender his bond. Since the scheme has been closed in the year 2002 the maturity value due after 15 years is not payable to the complainant.The complainant has denied receiving any notices of closure of the scheme.

 

On perusing the record, we find that though the bank has submitted notices and reminders to individual bond holders but it does not prove that any notice was sent to the complainant at his address. The copies of notices and reminders ( Anx. R-3, R-4 and R-5 ) are just printed notices and does not bear the name of the bond holders. These are not the office copies of the notice sent to the complainant. Hence, the learned DCF was not right in assuming that these notices have been sent to the complainant. The notification of call option was published on 1.7.2001 i.e. six months before the call option was to be exercised in Daily Bhaskar published from Ajmer. The

4

 

complainant is the resident of Jaipur. He cannot be expected to read this information in the Ajmer edition. Thus, it is proved that the complainant was not informed of the call option exercised by the bank.

 

In view of this, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Since the scheme has been closed in the year 2002, we order that the complainant shall be entitled to the face value payable after nine years of issuance of the bond. Since the bank has retained this money till now, the bank shall pay to the complainant interest @ 10% p.a. from the maturity date of nine years. We also do not understand as to why the bond holders were not sent the redemption amount at the closure of the scheme through demand drafts.

 

The appeal is allowed as above and the impugned judgment of the learned DCF is set aside. The respondent shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of prosecution.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member