Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/144/2019

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

Versus

Mrs. Surjit Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Narang Adv.

01 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	144 of 2019
Date of Institution	15.07.2019
Date of Decision	01.11.2019

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

Mrs. Surjit Kaur wife of Avtar Singh, resident of House No.2140/A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.   

                                ....Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.471 of 2018, which reads thus :-

“12]      Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the complainant is fully entitled for maturity value/amount of the bond, which is Rs.One Lakh, as becomes due on the date of maturity as on 31.3.2017.  The withholding of maturity amount of the bond by the Opposite Parties despite its maturity on 31.3.2017 amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complaint as such is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.One Lakh to the complainant, being maturity value of the bond in question, along with interest @9% p.a. from 31.3.2017 till payment, along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  The complainant shall return the Bond Certificate and sign/execute the requisite documents in favour of IDBI/OPs, as per their requirement.”

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “The complainant purchased Deep Discount Bond worth Rs.2700/- dated 31.3.1992 from OP Bank (An.C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that as per terms & conditions of the said bond, as on 31.3.2017, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be the face value of said Bond.  However, the OPs issued public notice on dated 4.6.2010 in “The Hindu” (Ann.C-3) for redemption of bond scheme by exercise of call option prior to normal maturity dates, which was not in the knowledge of the complainant.  As such, after the period of maturity i.e. 31.3.2017, when the complainant enquired about the value she would receive against the said Bond, she was informed that the bank has already invited a call option to all investors to redeem the bonds.  It is stated that at the time of call option, the redemption amount was Rs.12000/- against the investment of Rs.2700/- for each bond.  Now the present value including interest will be around Rs.17,000/- for each bond.  It is stated that complainant has not received any communication or notice from the OPs with regard to their Call Option to all the investors to redeem bonds in the year 2002.  Therefore, alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the Opposite Parties to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2]       The  OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix about the sale of bond in question, stated that they have the option to encash/redeem the bond at the end of every five years from 31.3.1992.  It is stated that the OPs 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/-.  It is also stated that keeping in view the financial viabilities, the OPs were not able to continue with the scheme due to which the bonds were redeemed at an early date and all the investors were informed accordingly through publication in the leading newspapers and notices were also sent through UPC on the given address. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”

4.             The complainant, filed replication to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

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

6.             After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

8.             We have heard Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties has submitted that the Forum has ignored the fact that as per terms and conditions of Deep Discount Bond (Series I), the appellants Bank decided to exercise the call option to redeem the said bond after 10 years i.e. on 31.02.2002 at deemed face value of Rs.12,000/- per bond. He further submitted that the appellants Bank got published the information to exercise call option in regional and national newspapers and the redemption was done strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bond. He further submitted that the Forum has ignored the fact that the respondent/complainant was duly informed about call option through UPC, publication in newspaper and also notice displayed in Bank. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Forum.   

10.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of Deep Discount Bond – (Series I) issued by Industrial Development Bank of India bearing Regd. Folio No.DD00680985 on 31.03.1992.  It is also clear from the said bond in the form of Promissory Note that after maturity on 31.03.2017, its face value is shown as Rs.1,00,000/-.  The plea of the appellants that as per terms and conditions of Deep Discount Bond (Series I), they decided to exercise the call option to redeem the said bond after 10 years i.e. on 31.02.2002 at deemed face value of Rs.12,000/- per bond, for which, they also got published to exercise call option in regional & national newspapers, also informed the respondent/complainant about call option through UPC and also notice displayed in Bank. The said plea of the appellants has no value at all because the law on the subject is very clear. Acknowledgement is a must to prove delivery of any document through UPC. Even the complainant specifically denied regarding receipt of aforesaid letter sent through UPC. 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 respondent/complainant.

                So far as the contention qua publishing of information in the newspaper is concerned, it may be stated that whether it was circulated in the locality where the complainant used to reside at the relevant point of time. In this regard, the Forum has rightly cited the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petiton No.2975 of 2008 – IDBI Bank Limited and Anr. Vs. T.K.Nagarathna, decided on 13.8.2008 and held that:-

“6. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel that Bank has published an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise the call back option does not carry weight in the days of electronic revolution. In today's world television is found in almost every urban house. Complainant is a resident of Chitradurga a District Headquarters and very few people have time to read all pages of the newspapers to locate such advertisements. Hence the Bank cannot escape its liability by merely publishing something in a newspaper.”

                Further in   case of Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by L.R.s Vs. Sita Ram, 2002 (1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 325 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 respondent/complainant.             Ratio of judgment in the case is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

12.           Not only this, the Forum has rightly stated in para No.8 of its impugned order that “the Opposite Parties could not compel any holder of bond to redeem or surrender the bond against his will before the maturity date as laid down in the Promissory Note itself.  It is the discretion of the bond holder to prematurely redeem the bonds or to wait for its maturity.  The OPs/IDBI cannot thrust upon its indiscriminate decision to redeem the bond upon the bondholder.”

13.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the 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.

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

15.           In view of dismissal of this appeal, the application for stay, filed by the appellants, stands infructuous. 

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

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

Pronounced.

November 1^st, 2019                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                PRESIDENT   
                       

                                                       

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                MEMBER

rb