F.A.No.1469/2008 against  C.C.No.820/2007, DISTRICT FORUM-I,Hyderabad.          

Between

P.Siva Reddy, S/o.P.Venkata Reddy,

Hindu, Aged about 61 years,

R/o.H.No.49-1-231, Lakshmi Nagar,

Kurnool, Kurnool Dist.                                      …Appellant/

                                                                       Complainant

        And

1.Industrial  Development Bank of India,

    IDBI Towers, WTC Complex,  Cuffe Parade,

    Mumbai – 400 005.

2. M/s. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd.,

    Plot No.A-16 & 17, Part B, Cross Lane,

    MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093.

3. The Investor Services of India Ltd.,

    IDBI Building, 2^nd floor,

    Plot No.39,40,41 Sector –II,

    CDB Belapur, Navi , Mumbai-400 614.

4. IDBI Branch,

    Mahaveer House,

    Basheerbagh Square,

    Hyderabad.

    Rep. by its Branch Manager.                         …  Respondents/

                                                                        Opp.parties 

Counsel for the Appellant     :   Mr.Manne Hari Babu

Counsel for the respondent   :    Mr.P.V.Markandeyulu-R1 and R4  

 QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                                        AND

                 SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER

 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

     TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

         (Typed to dictation of   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                ****

Aggrieved  by the order in   C.C.No.820/2007  on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad,  the complainant preferred this appeal. 

            The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant  is a retired engineer   and he  being attracted by the offer of opp.parties  promising to pay  maturity value  for Bonds at high rate of interest he applied  for allotment of bonds  and the opposite party allotted the following bonds:

a)IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 Nos. having distinctive no.0003424571   & 3424572,

b) IDBI Flexi Bonds (1) Nos.2 having distinctive nos .0001031347-348 value for Rs.5,000/-  each. 

c). IDBI Flexi Bonds (11) Nos. having distinctive   nos.0002828974-976 face  value of Rs.5000/- each . 

The complainant  applied for four IDBI Flexi bonds (17)  by paying the required amounts. Opp.parties instead of issuing certificate for four bonds issued three bonds having face value of Rs.5000/- each.  The complainant addressed several letters to the opp.party for furnishing the fourth bond  but there was response.  Opposite party paid maturity amount for three bonds and did pay for  the fourth bond.  The complainant addressed several letters including legal notice.  Opp.parties also paid the  maturity amount for IDBI Flexi bonds (10) nos. having distinctive nos.0001031347-348  without asking the complainant to submit the original bonds or receipt  etc.    The complainant  submits  that the  IDBI Infrastructure bond (99-A) 2 nos  having distinctive  nos.0003424571  & 3424572   matured on 27.3.2006   but the opp.parties did not pay the maturity amount. The complainant addressed letter requesting to pay the maturity amount  for the said bonds.  The opp.parties addressed a letter to the complainant asking to submit the original bonds  The complainant  is ready to hand over   the original bonds  but the opposite parties through their letter  dt.24.1.2007 stated that they are not liable to pay any interest on the bonds from 27.3.2002  as per IDBI rules.  The complainant submits that  the action of   opposite parties for non payment of the  maturity amount on the IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A)2 Nos. having  distinctive no.0003424571 & 3424572  is not only unfair and is also unlawful. Hence the complaint   seeking  direction to the opp.parties to pay a). Rs.24,000/-( Rs.12,000/-  each  as on 27.3.2006  as per the bond under IDBI Infrastructure  Bond (99-A) 2 nos.  having distinctive nos.0003424571 & 3424572)   with interest at 24% p.a. from 27.3.2006  till realization,  to pay an amount  of Rs.6,390/-( face value is Rs.5,000/- interest  on upto 3.9.2006  as per the warrant issued for other  bonds under IDBI Flexi  Bonds (17) Nos.1 face value Rs.5000/- which was applied by the complainant and not issued by the opp.parties) with interest at 24% p.a. from 3.9.2006 till realization , to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
  

        Opposite party  no.1  filed    their  version contending that they made a public issue of IDBI Flexibonds-6 (1999A)  and the complainant applied for two bonds and was allotted two bonds of IDBI Flexibonds-6  bearing Folio No.AIFB-0102775  under IDBI infrastructure (Tax Saving) bonds (99-A)  having face value of Rs.5,000/- each, opted for Option B under Section 88 matured in three years i.e. on 27.3.2002  for the redemption proceeds of Rs.7150/-  per bond only.     The complainant  was allotted  two bonds of IDBI Flexibonds-6 bearing  Folio No.101FB-1407831 under IDBI Infrastructure  (Tax Saving)  Bonds (2001-B)  having face value of Rs.5000/-  each  opted for Option ‘B’ under   cumulative option, maturing after three years four months i.e. on 30.7.2004 for the redemption proceeds of Rs.13,644/-  for two bonds.      The  complainant  applied for three bonds and was allotted three bonds of IDBI Flexi Bonds-11 bearing Folio no.111FBD-2052786  under IDBI   Infrastructure (Tax Saving)  Bonds (2002-A)  having  face value of Rs.5000/-  each  opted for option D under cumulative option maturing  after three years six months  i.e. on 5.8.2005  for the  redemption proceeds of Rs.6,785/-  per bond only.   A letter dt.21.1.2002 along with redemption  application  form was sent to the complainant for sending  it to the Registrar  of the issue  which is to be sent one month before the date of redemption.   It was    informed  to the complainant  to send it one month before the date  of redemption.   The complainant is entitled for Rs.14,300/- towards the monthly  value of the two bonds  and the same  will be paid.   The complainant    made the claim for the amount which he is not entitled for. The complainant cannot claim any amount over and above the redemption amount. The opposite party prayed  for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to  A22 and B1 to B7  disposed the case directing the opp.party no.1 to pay the maturity amount of  bond no.99-A(Regd.Folio AIF 8102775) due  and payable by the date of maturity date noted in the bond   and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. if delayed beyond 30 days and the complainant shall return Rs.18,745/- to opp.party no.1 with interest @ 12% from 4.9.06 upto the  date of payment. 

         Aggrieved by the said order  the complainant preferred this appeal.  Appellant filed Exs.A23 and A24  as additional evidence.   Respondent no.1 filed Exs.B8 to B11 as additional evidence. 

        It is the complainant’ s case that he applied for four IDBI infrastructure bonds  but the opp.parties issued certificates for only 3 bonds having face value of Rs.5000/- each.  Inspite of several reminders for  IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) having distinctive numbers  000342 4571 and 342 4572 matured on March,27,2006  did not pay the maturity amount.  The opp.parties addressed a letter to the complainant  to submit the original bonds and also stated vide their letter dt.24.1.2007 (Ex.A4) that they are not liable to pay any interest on the bonds from 27.3.2002 as per IDBI rules.  It is the complainant’s case that he is entitled to an amount of Rs.6390/- under IDBI Flexi Bonds 17 and also an amount of Rs.24,000/- for IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 nos. together with interest from 27.3.06 till realization. The learned counsel for the respondents/opp.parties contended that    the opp.parties never allotted Flexi Bond no.17 to the complainant  and this bond pertains to another person by name P.Siva Reddy of Kadapa  which was wrongly adjusted by opp.party no.3 and maturity amount  of Rs.18,745/- covered by Folio no.1801475 was wrongly sent to the complainant and Ex.B4 is the copy of the application of the said P.Siva Reddy of Kadapa whose amount was wrongly encashed by this complainant . He relied on Ex.B3 to B5 in support of his case and also filed additional evidence Exs.B8 to B11.  Ex.B9 is an application wherein the name T.B.Ravi appears as the name of the applicant and an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been paid. Ex.B10 shows that cash receipt 101 dt.5.2.03 (Ex.B8) is received for application no.B1982651 and not for 1982667  and an application no.B1982651 is in the name of T.B.Ravi. The respondent/opp.party also filed affidavit of the AGM, IDBI Bank  stating that the payments of the maturity amounts on two IDBI Infrastructure Savings Bond (99-A) was paid to the complainant but without interest.  The said amount was paid on 21.7.2008 for Rs.13,857/- after deducting TDS.  The learned counsel for the respondent/opp.party contended that the complainant cannot seek for issuance of fourth bond since he has applied for only 3 bonds  and that there is no documentary evidence that he has subscribed for fourth bond and  sought for refund of Rs.18,745/- which was infact paid by mistake to the complainant herein.    We observe from the record that  the documentary evidence Exs.B1 to B4  show that the complainant did not apply for Flexi Bond -17 which is also substantiated by Exs.B8 to B11. Ex.B4 clearly evidences that one Pochanna Siva Reddy of Kadapa had applied for the bonds and an amount of Rs.18,745/- was sent to the  complainant (Ex.B2).  The contention of the appellant/complainant that amount has to be paid to him for the  fourth bond is not supported by any documentary evidence.  The burden is on the complainant to prove his case and he did not choose to file the acknowledgement. The appellant/complainant filed Exs.A23 and A24 as  an additional evidence.  But the learned counsel for the respondent/opp.party filed EXs.B8 to B11 which states that this cash receipt no.101 is  pertain to Exs.A24  as per application 1982651 and not for 1982667. We also observe from the record that  in Ex.A24 there appears to be a correction of the last two digits.  In the light of Exs.B8 to B11 it is clear that the complainant herein  did not make the payments with respect to 101 voucher number (Ex.A24). Taking into consideration that the complainant failed to establish by way of filing correct acknowledgement slip or by filing the particulars of payment of money or the statement of the bank crediting the amount to IDBI account, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the respondents/opp.parties and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Dist. Forum.  Hence this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.     

                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                                                                                                  Dt. 27.9.2011