STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

                                         APPEAL NO.225 OF 2010

            Date of Institution:24.6.2010.

                                                                                       Date of Decision:17.09.2010.

Sh. Gurkirat Singh (minor) through his father/natural guardian Sh. Jaswinder Singh S/o Capt. Sarwan Singh resident of House No.3283/2, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                      ….Appellant.

Versus

1.     Industrial Development Bank of India Limited, Regd. Office: IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Curfee Parade, Mumbai 400 005 through its Chairman & Managing Director.

2.     IDBI Bank Ltd., Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      ….Respondents.

BEFORE:             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Capt. Sarwan Singh, Grandfather of the appellant.

                    Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

PER SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal against order dated 24.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) allowing the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant against the OPs directing them to pay the maturity amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @3.5% on quarterly compounding basis w.e.f. 30.4.2001 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                 The complainant-appellant is a minor and under the guardianship of his father, had purchased IDBI Deep Discount Bond at the issue price of Rs.5,500/-. One of the conditions of the bond (copy of which is Annexure C-1) was that the bond holder could get the same redeemed at any of the four dates mentioned therein and the OPs could also exercise the call option and pay the redeemed face value on the aforesaid dates to the bond holder. The contention of OPs is that the said call option was exercised by them regarding which notices were published in major leading newspapers in English and regional languages across India on 14.3.2001, individual notices were also sent to all the bond holders including the complainant vide their letter dated 28.2.2001 through U.P.C to surrender the duly discharged bonds by 16.4.2001. It is alleged that even inspite of the notices issued in the newspapers and the individual notice issued to the complainant through U.P.C, the complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the offer and did not submit the bond and therefore, he is not entitled to anything beyond Rs.10,000/-. It was also contended that according to the R.B.I Guidelines, they would pay interest @3.5% p.a. on quarterly compounding basis on the maturity amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of exercise of call option till the date of payment. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint, which was opposed by the OPs on the grounds mentioned above.

3.                 After obtaining the reply of the OPs and the evidence of the parties, the learned District Forum vide the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 directed the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest and costs as referred to above. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.

4.                 We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5.                 There is no dispute about the right of OPs to exercise the call option w.e.f. the dates mentioned in the Deep Discount Bond, copy of which is Annexure C-1, as mentioned in Para No.1 of the impugned order. It is also proved by the OPs that notices were issued in English and vernacular newspapers requiring the bond holders to surrender the bond and to receive the payment. Annexure R-3 (Colly.) contains the copies of the newspapers, in which notices were published by the OPs. The OPs have produced a list of bond holders to whom the individual notices were sent by the OPs through U.P.C. The name of the complainant is mentioned at Serial No.20290. The contention of OPs is that this individual notice was sent to the complainant but the complainant has alleged that he never received the same. The learned District Forum in Para No.4 of the impugned order mentioned that there was no proof about the delivery of the letter to the recipient and the OPs have not been able to prove, whether letter dated 28.2.2001 was actually delivered to the complainant and therefore, they cannot say that the complainant was aware of the redemption. A perusal of the list shows that against the name of the complainant, no house number or Sector No. was mentioned where the letter was to be delivered. The only address mentioned is ‘Chandigarh’. There is no denying the fact that a letter addressed to Sh. Gurkirat Singh at Chandigarh cannot be delivered to him in the absence of house number and the sector. It is, therefore, clear that the individual letter was never received by the complainant. Once this fact is admitted, then the only conclusion is that the Deep Discount Bond has not been redeemed in accordance with the rules and regulations and therefore, the stand of OPs in this respect would fail.

6.                 Since the individual notice has not been served on the complainant, OPs cannot be said to have exercised the call option in respect of the complainant-appellant w.e.f. 2001. When the complainant came to know of it, he started corresponding with the OPs for redemption of the bond. If the bond had not been redeemed on 30.4.2001, the next date for redemption of the bond falls on 30.9.2007 when the complainant is entitled to Rs.25,000/-. It is mentioned in Para No.4 of the complaint that he requested the OPs vide letter dated 6.7.2009 to redeem the bond as per terms of original contract without causing any loss to the bond holder etc. etc. In the Memorandum of Appeal at Page No.3, the complainant  has requested to pay the redemption amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest as agreed @3.5% on quarterly compounding basis w.e.f. 30.9.2007 till date. Since the bond is not proved to have been redeemed in the year 2001 and the complainant had requested for its redemption, we are of the opinion that the request of the complainant should have been accepted by the OPs and consequently by the learned District Forum.

7.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum cannot sustain. The same is accordingly modified and the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 3.5% per annum on quarterly compounding basis w.e.f. 30.9.2007 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The OPs shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- of this appeal in addition to the cost of litigation ordered by the learned District Forum.

8.                 The above said amount shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with interest @12% per annum as ordered by the learned District Forum.

9.                 Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

17^th September 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                           MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                                                  MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL NO.225 OF 2010

Argued by:          Capt. Sarwan Singh, Grandfather of the appellant.

                    Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

                                -.-

                Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the this appeal filed by the complainant has been partly allowed.

Ad/-