Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/622/2017

Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/622/2017
Date of Institution	:	05/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/04/2018

 

1.     Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur aged about 66 years w/o Sh. Gurbax Singh r/o House No.122, Sector 71, Mohali.

2.     Mr. Sukhjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh r/o House No.122, Sector 71, Mohali.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

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

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

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                              

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gurbax Singh, authorised representative of complainants
	:	Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The averments are, complainant No.1 purchased from OP-1 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).  OPs had 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 OP-1 for encashment, however, an email was received on 20.4.2017 informing that IDBI have 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.  Now the present value including interest will be around Rs.19,000/- for each bond.  The complainant had replied that no such notice was issued/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, on these allegations the complainant prayed for full maturity value alongwith interest and compensation.
2.         OPs filed joint reply, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complaint being not maintainable in present form; barred by limitation; no cause of action; complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present complaint; complainants have not approached the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, the averments qua purchase of bonds of Rs.2,700/- each were admitted and that OPs promised to pay Rs.one lakh for each bond after 25 years i.e. 31.3.2017.  However, it is the case, OPs shall have the option to encash/ redeem the bond at the end of every five years from 31.3.1992.  The case is, 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/- as already referred. 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.  All the investors were informed accordingly through publication in the leading newspapers and notice was also sent through UPC on the given address. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainants reiterating their version as advanced in the consumer complaint. 
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the authorised representative of the complainants, learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, purchase of eight Deep Discount Bonds (Annexure C-1) in the name of complainants is not disputed before us at all.  We shall refer to the recitals in Annexure C-1 i.e. Deep Discount Bond (Series I), issue price is Rs.2,700/- each and face value is mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is also scribed on the bonds that it would mature on 31.3.2017.  There is also reference that IDBI shall have the option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of every five years from 31.3.1992 for the deemed face value.
7.         Per pleadings of the OPs, they justified their action as option was exercised in the year 2002 which was available to both the parties.  But, the option, as a matter of common sense, could not have been exercised one sided as the holder of bond was entitled to know the result of the said option.
8.         Per pleadings and the affidavits of the parties, the moot point is with regard to any information given qua the exercise of said option to the complainant is material.  It is the case of the OPs, information was published in the newspaper, but, there is no pleading or evidence led in the form of issue of newspapers in which daily it was published and whether it was circulated in the locality where the complainants used to reside at the relevant point of time i.e. 2002.  There is no such material on record that the said daily newspaper used to be circulated in the vicinity of the complainant.
9.         The next contention is, communication was sent through UPC.  It has not been explained why it was not sent through registered post so to have authentic information qua its delivery to the complainant or to say that Postal Department had obtained its acknowledgement qua delivery to the complainants.  The Hon’ble National Commission in case of IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. T.K. Nagarathna, 2009 (1) CLT 108 (NC) wherein the contention of the petitioner (IDBI) was that the call option was communicated through UPC was rejected in the absence of any acknowledgement.  It was further held that the petitioner was not liable to escape its liability merely by publishing an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise its option. In another case Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd. etc. Vs. Dr. Saraswati Gupta, Appeal No.291 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh on 7.1.2010 also, the claim of the complainant/ respondent was upheld for similar reasons.  We are bound with the ratio of the order of the Hon’ble National and State Commission.
10.         Contra, the learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon copy of the order passed in R.P. No.3930- of 2013 titled as Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. decided on 25.11.2013 wherein it was held that subsequent communication dated 29.4.2009 on same address was received, therefore, the contention of the complainants is rejected. However, in the present case, there is no such subsequent communication receipt of which is admitted by the complainants. Relied on precedent stands on different footing.
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:-

 

1. 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.
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainants as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to them;
3. 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.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President