Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/130/2018

M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Narang,Adv.

17 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	130 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	23.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	17.12.2018

 

1.  M/s IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2.  IDBI Bank Ltd., Tower, WTC Complex, Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400005.

 

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

 

1)  Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur wife of Sh. Gurbax Singh resident of House No.122, Sector-71, Mohali.

2)  Mr. Sukhjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh resident of House No.122, Sector-71, Mohali.

 

                                                     ...Respondents/Complainants.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against   order dated 13.04.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.622 of 2017.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Gurbax Singh, Authorized Representative of the respondent.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellants/opposite parties have filed this appeal against order dated 13.04.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.622 of 2017 filed by the respondents/complainants was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“11.      In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

                                                       i)            To immediately pay the maturity value of the eight bonds i.e. Rs.8.00 lakhs to the complainants (as per Annexure C-1) in the form of promissory notes alongwith interest as applicable to savings bank account w.e.f. 31.3.2017 till realization.

                                                    ii)            To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainants as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to them;

                                                  iii)            To pay to the complainants Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.        This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that complainant No.1 purchased from Opposite Party No.1/appellant - Deep Discount Bond Series-I No.00043082 to 00043085 in the name of her minor son, complainant No.2 and Nos.00043086 to 00043089 in her name in the year 1992 at Rs.2,700/- each (issue price).  The opposite parties promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for each bond at the end of 25 years i.e. 31.3.2017 as printed on the bond certificate.  Upon maturity after 25 years, the bonds were submitted to Opposite Party No.1 for encashment, however, an email was received on 20.4.2017 informing that IDBI had invited a call option to all investors by exercising its option to redeem the bonds and further it was also communicated through letter and print media in 2002. At the time of call option, redemption amount was Rs.12,000/- for each bond and now the present value including interest would be around Rs.19,000/- for each bond. The complainant replied that no such notice was issued and received.  The matter was referred to the Reserve Bank of India and it was then forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman. The Ombudsman made a report qua the call option and the claim of the complainant was not acceded to. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.             The opposite parties, in their reply, admitted the averments qua purchase of bonds of Rs.2,700/- each and that the opposite parties promised to pay Rs.1 lakh for each bond after 25 years i.e. 31.3.2017.  It was stated that the opposite parties shall have the option to encash/ redeem the bond at the end of every five years from 31.3.1992. It was further stated that the opposite parties 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.12,000/- as already referred. It was further stated that keeping in view the financial viabilities, the opposite parties were not able to continue with the scheme, due to which, the bonds were redeemed at an early date. It was further stated that all the investors were informed accordingly through publication in the leading newspapers and notice was also sent through UPC on the given address. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The complainants filed rejoinder wherein they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of opposite parties.

5.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

6.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of Counsel for the parties, the Forum partly allowed the complaint, as referred to above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.

8.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

9.             Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that the Forum has ignored the fact that as per terms and conditions of Deep Discount Bond (Series I), the appellants got published the information for call option and according to the said option, the appellants/opposite parties decided the call option to redeem the aforesaid Bond after 10 years i.e. on 31.02.2002 at deemed face value of Rs.12,000/- per bond. It was submitted that redemption was done strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bond which was also written on the bond and offer document. It was further submitted that the Forum also ignored the fact that the respondents/complainants were duly informed about the call option through UPC, through publication in newspaper and through notice displayed in Bank. To support his contention, Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties placed reliance on the cases of ‘Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr.’, Revision Petition No.3930 of 2013 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 25.11.2013 and DDA through its Director(s) Vs. Sunil Bharti’, Revision Petition No.800 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.08.2009.

10.           On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents/ complainants submitted that the Forum, after going through the evidence on record, and law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of ‘IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. T. K. Nagarathna’, 2009 (1) CLT 108 (NC), partly allowed the complaint. The Forum also referred to the judgment of this Commission rendered in the case of ‘Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd. etc. Vs. Dr. SAraswati Gupta’, Appeal No.291 of 2009 decided on 07.01.2010, wherein the claim of the respondent/complainant in that case was upheld for similar reasons. It was argued that the respondents/complainants never received the letter alleged to have been sent by the appellants/opposite parties through UPC. Counsel for the respondents/complainants also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by L.R.s Vs. Sita Ram, 2002 (1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 325 (S.C.).

11.           It may be stated here that before the Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have lost their cases and so is the opinion of this Commission. The law on the subject is very clear. Acknowledgement is must to prove delivery of any document through UPC. In the instant case, the respondents/complainants specifically denied receipt of alleged letter sent by the appellants/opposite parties intimating call option for redemption of Deep Discount Bonds. On the other hand, the appellants/opposite parties miserably failed to prove on record by way of any cogent and convincing evidence or acknowledge establishing delivery of the aforesaid letter to the respondents/complainants. So far as the contention qua publishing of information in the newspaper is concerned, the Forum in Para 8 of its order rightly held that there was no pleading or evidence led qua issue of such newspapers and whether it was circulated in the locality where the complainants used to reside at the relevant point of time i.e. 2002.

12.           It is not out of place to mention here that this Commission in case ‘Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd. etc. (supra), under identical facts, dismissed the appeal by observing that there was no document on the file for having sent any intimation to the complainant qua redemption. Aggrieved against order of this Commission, the appellants went in Revision Petition No.982 of 2010 before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was also dismissed on 02.02.2015. While confirming the order passed by this Commission, the Hon’ble National Commission held that the petitioner had not placed UPC receipt by which, intimation was sent to the respondent.  It was further held that merely by this letter, it does not stand proved that intimation was given to the complainant by opposite party Under Certificate of Posting.

13.           Further as stated above, in IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission, in the absence of any acknowledgement,  rejected the contention of the IDBI Bank that the call option was communicated through UPC.

14.           Further in Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by L.R.s (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law that when notice is sent under certificate of posting, it is obligatory on the part of the sender to prove the service of notice in view of the statement on oath given by the addressee denying receipt of any such notice. As discussed above, in the instant case, the appellants/opposite parties have failed to prove the contention of successful delivery of alleged letter sent through UPC to the respondents/complainants.

15.           Ratio of judgments in the cases of IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr., Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd. etc. (supra) and Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by L.R.s (supra), are fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

16.           On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties in the cases of Chatur Behari Sharma (supra) and DDA through its Director(s) (supra), are of no help to the appellants/opposite parties being distinguishable on facts. In Chatur Behari Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission did not accept the contention of the appellant that he did not receive the communication from the bank dated 30.09.2007 on the ground that the appellant admitted having received a subsequent communication dated 29.04.2009 on the same address. However, in the instant case, there is nothing like that the respondents/complainant denied receipt of the alleged letter sent through UPC and the appellants/opposite parties miserably failed to establish its delivery to the respondents/complainants.

17.           In the second case i.e. DDA through its Director(s) (supra), the dispute had arisen due to non-receipt of allotment letter by the respondent/complainant, which was shown to have returned undelivered by the courier services for want of complete address. The Hon’ble National Commission rejected the contention of the respondent/complainant by holding that the petitioner authority could not be blamed for non-communication to the respondent as a notice calling upon all the allottees, who failed to respond to the allotment letter, had been published in a newspaper and in that event of failure to respond, the allotment made was to stand cancelled. The facts involved in the instant case are distinguishable. It is not the case here that the address of the respondents/complainants was incomplete or there was any report qua incomplete address. The alleged letter was sent through UPC, which was never delivered to the respondents/complainants. Further, qua the information published in the newspaper, the Forum clearly held that there was no such material on record that the said daily newspaper used to be circulated in the vicinity of the respondents/complainants.

18.           In our opinion, the Forum rightly ordered the appellants/opposite parties to pay the maturity value of eight bonds i.e. Rs.8 Lakhs to the respondents/complainants in the form of promissory notes alongwith interest as applicable to savings bank account w.e.f. 31.03.2017 till realization. It also rightly awarded compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to the respondents/complainants besides costs of litigation.

19.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

20.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the parties.

21.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

22.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

23.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

17.12.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad