JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal has been preferred by the complainant (now appellant) against the order dated 30.8.2010 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh vide which it directed the opposite parties (now respondents) to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 3.5% p.a. from 2.8.2000 till the same was paid to her. It was further directed that the entire amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2200/- would be paid by the OPs within thirty days, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the said amount alongwith penal interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.2.2010 till the amount was actually paid. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.3.1996, the complainant purchased IDBI Deep Discount Bond/Retirement Bond from OPs for an amount of Rs.5300/- having face value of Rs.2 lacs and the same was to mature on 18.3.2021. Both the complainant as well as the OPs had the option to redeem bond early i.e. on 1.8.2000 at Rs.10,000/-, 1.12.2006 at Rs.25,000/-, 1.9.2011 at Rs.50,000/- and 1.6.2016 at Rs.1,00,000/-. In May,2009, the complainant received letter dated 29.4.2009 from the OPs whereby she was called upon to give her option, for redemption of the aforesaid bond. It was also stated that the OPs claimed that they had exercised their call option, and as per the notice in the newspapers, the bond holders were advised to redeem the bonds at the face value of Rs.10,000/- on 1.8.2000. It was further stated that no call notice dated 25.5.2000, as claimed to have been sent by the OPs, was ever received by the complainant. A legal notice demanding the due amount of Rs.2 lacs was served upon the OPs on 1.7.2009. In the reply received from the OPs, it was stated that the complainant was entitled to the face value of the bond which was Rs.10,000/-. Left with no other alternative, the complainant filed complaint, alleging therein deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, by the OPs. 3. In the written reply filed by OPs, they admitted the factual matrix. It was averred that both the complainant and the OPs had equal and simultaneous option, for redemption or withdrawal of the bond at the defined/prefixed maturity dates. Accordingly, the OPs exercised their right of call option on 1.8.2000 and advised all the bondholders through publication of notices in the leading newspapers, in English, and regional languages, across India on 10/11-5-2000. It was further stated that the bondholders were informed to communicate any change, in the address, as the OPs were redeeming the bonds. Thereafter, the OPs also sent individual notices to all the bondholders including the complainant vide letter dated 25.5.2000 through UPC to surrender the duly discharged bond certificates to the RT agents on or before 15.7.2000 to enable them to receive the redemption proceeds by 1.8.2000.It was further stated that the reminder dated 22.9.2000 was also issued to the complainant through UPC, and the notices were published in the leading newspapers, across India, on regular intervals of six months. It was further stated that inspite of these communications, the complainant did not submit her duly discharged bond certificate for redemption. It was further stated that OPs, as per the RBI guidelines, on unclaimed deposits, were ready to pay to the complainant additional interest @ 3.5% on quarterly compounding basis on the maturity amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of exercise of call option i.e. 1.8.2000 till payment on surrender of the duly discharged bond certificate. It was further stated that there was, thus, no deficiency in service, or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence and the record, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the complainant for acceptance of the appeal by modification of the order, claiming enhancement of the amount, awarded by the District Forum. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record carefully. 6. The learned Counsel for appellant/complainant submitted that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 3.5% on quarterly compounding basis with effect from 1.12.2006 until the amount was paid to her alongwith costs. It was further submitted that since no individual notice was received by the complainant before 1.8.2000, the respondents/OPs could not exercise the call option with effect from 1.8.2000. He further submitted that since the Bond had not been redeemed on 1.8.2000 and as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the next date for redemption was 1.12.2006, the District Forum was wrong, in granting only Rs.10,000/- to the complainant instead of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest as per the guidelines of the RBI, to which she was entitled. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/OPs submitted that the order passed by the learned District Forum, is correct according to the record. He further submitted that no ground, whatsoever, was made out for acceptance of the appeal by way of modification of the order by enhancement of the amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 8. Undisputedly the complainant purchased IDBI Deep Discount Bond at the issue price of Rs.5300/-. One of the conditions of the bond certificate Annexure C-1, was that the bondholder as well as the Industrial Development Bank of India could redeem the bond on four dates mentioned therein. There is, no dispute, that the respondents/OPs and the complainant/appellant could exercise the call option with effect from the dates mentioned in the bond certificate Annexure C-1. According to the respondents, a notice was issued in the leading newspapers in English as well as regional languages across India on 10/11-5-2000, to surrender the bonds and to receive payment. Copies of such notices are Annexures R-4/A to R-4/D. The question arises, as to whether, mere notice in the newspapers without any individual notice, having been issued to the investor, at his/her correct address, would amount to sufficient compliance of the terms and conditions for exercising the call option by the parties or not. In our opinion, mere publication of notice in the newspapers, did not satisfy the requirement of exercise of call option by either party. In our considered opinion, the respondents were required to issue individual notice, to the investor to the effect that they had exercised call option. According to the respondents, they sent individual notice to the investor by post. Annexure R-6 is a copy of the sheet showing the issuance of notice to the investors. The name of the appellant/complainant finds mention at serial No.24053. However, on perusal of the address of the complainant, at which the notice was sent, it is evident that only house number was mentioned therein, without mentioning the Sector, in which the said notice was to be delivered. There are more than 60 Sectors in Chandigarh and House No.3384, may be found in every Sector. In these circumstances, such an individual notice, alleged to have been sent to the complainant cannot be said to be sent at her correct address. It was right from the beginning, the case of complainant that she did not receive the individual notice referred to above and this fact was rightly found to be correct by the learned District Forum, on the basis of Annexure R-6 produced by OPs. Since, individual letter was not received by the complainant, as the address mentioned therein was not correct, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the Deep Discount Bond has not been redeemed as per the terms and conditions of the contract w.e.f. 1.8.2000. There was thus, deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the OPs. The stand of the OPs regarding exercise of option w.e.f. 1.8.2000, can be said to be without substance and stands rejected. 9. The learned District Forum was not right in coming to the conclusion that the publication of notices, in the newspapers, in English and regional languages, was sufficient to satisfy the requirement for the redemption of bond, when it had come to the specific conclusion that the individual notice said to have been issued, to the complainant, did not bear the number of the Sector and was not received by her. The conclusion arrived at , by the learned District Forum that the OPs had qualified for early redemption of bonds, from the date of exercise of call option by publication of notice in the newspapers cannot be said to be correct and the same is liable to be reversed. 10. Since individual notice had not been issued at the correct address of the complainant, nor received by her before 1.8.2000, the call option could not be exercised by the OPs with effect from 1.8.2000. The next date for redemption of the bond was 1.12.2006. On that date the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant has relied upon Annexure C-2, copy of the letter dated 29.4.2009 which was for the first time received by her from the OPs that they had exercised the call option on 1.8.2000 by publication of notice in the newspapers. Since mere publication of notice in the newspapers did not satisfy the requirement of the terms and conditions of the contract, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 1.12.2006, the next date as per the schedule for redemption of the bond. Legal notice dated 1.7.2009 annexure C-3 was sent by the complainant to the OPs for redemption of the bond. The learned District Forum was, thus, wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the premises that the call option was correctly exercised by the OPs by publication of notices in the newspapers. Since, bond was not proved to have been redeemed w.e.f. 1.8.2000, the OPs were required to accept the request of the complainant in 2009 when she made an option for redemption of the same. In this view of the matter, conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum for refund of Rs.10,000/-, with interest, cannot be said to be correct and the same is liable to be reversed, and the order deserves to be modified. 11. Not only this, in an identical case titled Gurkirat Singh Vs IDBI Ltd. the District Forum had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest to the complainant. However, in Appeal No.225/2010 decided on 17.9.2010 filed by Gurkirat Singh, this Commission had granted Rs.25,000/- from the next date of redemption by modifying the order of District Forum. There must be consistency in the orders of the Commission in the cases, grounded on identical facts. The decision, in appeal, by this Commission, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the learned District Forum is required to be modified. Accordingly the appeal is accepted, and the order of the District Forum is modified. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 3.5 per annum, on quarterly compounding basis, with effect from 1.12.2006, till the amount is actually paid to her. The OPs shall also pay litigation costs of Rs.5000/- of this appeal, in addition to the litigation costs, ordered by the learned District Forum. The above amount shall be paid by OPs, to the complainant, within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order, failing which, they would be liable to pay penal interest @ 9% p.a., as ordered by the District Forum. The amount shall be deposited in the FDR, in the name of the complainant, and shall be paid on attaining majority. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
