Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/956/2016

Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Industrial Development Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Aseem Gupta Adv.

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	956 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	10.11.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	08.08.2017

 

 

 

 

Sh.Shyam Sunder Arora, R/o A-43, Shalimar Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

         …..Complainants

Versus

1]  Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), through its Branch Manager, Sector 11, Panchkula.

2] Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), through its Chairman, having its Head Office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005

3]  Karvy Computershare Private Limited, through its Branch Manager, having its Office at SCO No.2423-2424, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

4]  Karvy Computershare Private Limited, through its Chairman/President, having its Head Office at Karvy Selenium Tower B, Plot NO.31-32, Gachibowli, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad 500032

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Aseem Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

 Ms.Neelam Chaudhary, ADv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

 OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant had invested his hard earned money with OPs in the Flexi Bonds believing that the redemption amount of the same would help him in his old age life and thus purchased different IDBI Flexi bonds. It is averred that the OPs in their turn paid the due amounts of some of the flexi bonds on their maturity dates, but failed to make payment of two IDBI Flexi bonds Folio No.18IFB143134, Distinctive No.0000594679 to 0000594680, dated 17.5.2003, issue price Rs.5000/- per bond, matured on 25.10.2006 at the value of Rs.6350/- per bond. It is stated that the Opposite Parties in other cases had issued the cheques in the shape of maturity warrant of the flexi bonds to the complainant, directly in his bank account. Further averred that when the complainant came to know from his bank account statement that he has not been paid the disputed maturity amount of the above said flexi bonds, he approached the OPs, whereupon Opposite Party NO.4 vide mail dated 6.7.2016 confirmed that the maturity amount of said flexi bonds remained unpaid and they demanded bank account details, cancelled cheque and present address proof along with one request letter for making fresh redemption warrant. Further averred that even after fulfilling the above said requirements of the OPs, still the maturity amount of the flexi bonds in question has not been paid by the Opposite Parties. Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs, whereupon the Opposite Parties credited/released the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- in the account of the complainant on 21.10.2016, but did not pay anything over and above the said maturity amount for retaining the amount for a period of 10 years.  It is submitted that the OPs are liable to pay interest on the said maturity amount from the date of maturity i.e. 25.10.2006 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.10.2016.  The complainant made several requests to the Opposite Parties in this regard, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per record, the bond in question was expired on 25.10.2006 and applicable amount of redemption was released to the complainant through issuance of warrant No.600139915 and cheque No.16100 dated 25.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.12,425/- and sent through registered post vide postal receipt No.BPJR30608975, which was returned undelivered.  It is averred that the 10 years old record, as per the norms is not preserved/retained by the bank.  It is also averred that even the complaint/application was forwarded to the concerned company for taking redressal of the grievances without any fault or delay on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OPs No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post on 16.11.2016, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.12.2016.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainants thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is well proved on record that the complainant on 25.10.2016 was remitted the maturity amount of disputed IDBI Flexi bonds (bearing Folio No.18IFB143134, Distinctive No.0000594679 to 0000594680), dated 17.5.2003, having issue price of Rs.5000/- per bond with maturity date of 25.10.2006 having value of Rs.6350/- per bond on maturity.

 

7]       A dispute has been raised by the complainant that the remittance of the above said maturity amount has been made by the OPs after much persuasion and that too without interest. Complainant alleged that there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, who not only failed to disburse the due maturity amount on its due date of maturity but also failed to pay the interest over the said amount for the period it remained pending with the Opposite Parties i.e. for approximately 10 years.

 

8]       The OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply claimed that in the year 2006 when the bond in question matured, the applicable amount of redemption was released to the complainant through issuance of warrant No.600139915 and cheque No.16100 dated 25.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.12,425/- and sent through registered post vide postal receipt No.BPJR30608975, which was returned undelivered.  This submission of the Opposite Parties is devoid of any documentary evidence in this regard, thus not tenable.  Also no document showing any entry made in that regard has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties.

9]       Moreover, the defence put forth by the OPs seems to be not trustworthy as the OPs for other flexi bonds purchased by the complainant  (as mentioned in the complaint), paid the maturity amount directly into the bank account of the complainant and strangely they omitted to adopt the same pattern for the disputed flexi bonds.

10]      From the above observations, it is thus proved that the OPs rendered deficient services towards the complainant as they failed to pay the due maturity amount to the complainant in time and also proved their indulgence into unfair trade practice by illegally retaining the due amount of the complainant for a long period of 10 years without any purpose or justification.  However, since the maturity amount has already been paid to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is now entitled for the interest on the due amount for the period it remained pending with the OPs beyond the maturity date. 

11]      In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties with following directions:-

1. To pay the interest amount @9% per annum on the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- from the due date i.e. 25.10.2006 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.10.2016.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (b) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (a) & (c) above.

  

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th August, 2017                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER