Delhi

New Delhi

OC/1037/2003

Prem Chand Chachra & Asha Chahra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.OC/1037/03                     Dated:

In the matter of:

PREM CHAND CHACHRA &

ASHA CHACHRA

R/O. J-14, SAKET

NEW DELHI – 110017.

         ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1.     BANK OF BARODA

        BANK OF BARODA BUILDING

        PARLIAMENT STREET

        NEW DELHI-110001.

 

2.     HINDUSTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.

        MODY BUILDING

        27, SIR R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD

        CALCUTTA – 700 001.

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

ORDER 

President: C.K Chaturvedi

The complainant is in respect of nonpayment of Debenture Redemption amount of 14 %, 100 no. Folio no. P118162, certificate no.233541 & 223509 of Rs.50/- each, totaling to Rs.13,500/- inclusive of interest of Rs.8,500/- on total value of certification of Rs.5,000/-.

It is alleged that Bank of Baroda, is mortgages and trustee of above debentures and has granted payment of same along with interest on behalf of company and OP1, which has committed to pay the same in 5 equal installments from 20.04.099 to 20.04.03. However, no payment was received despite reminders. It is alleged that bank had not released the amount by taking the plea that they have filed cases against the original company OP2, stating that matter is sub-judice.

Therefore, this complainant praying for direction to OP1 for honoring the commitment to make above payment to complainant along with cost & damages etc.

The OP1 filed evidence on affidavit along with judgments of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission of West Bengal in the Case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Vishwanath Poddar & others, dated 11.09.099 in FA/09/05. It’s case is that in term of the trust deed dated 24.02.93 (Series IX), the debenture was secured by equitable mortgage of plants and immovable assets of OP2, and OP1 was empowered to enforce the security and institute proceedings for recovery of money & interest in respect of debentures, for benefit of all the debentures holders and not the individual debenture holder, and stated that it took all steps to protect the interest of debenture holders but OP2 proposed a scheme of arrangement with Hindustan Engine & Industries Ltd. Exh.OP1/2, and which is pending and OP2 filed a reference before BIFR, New Delhi, vide Exh.OP-1/10 dated 0701.02. It has relied on the judgment of West Bengal Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, to say that consumer dispute does not lie between the debenture holder and trustees as relation between the complainant & OP was of debtor or creditor.

OP2 is exparte.

We have considered the rival case. The complainant has produced before us a judgment of full bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in RP no.1299/203-1301/2003, 1170/2005, 1076/2007, 3206/2007, 4059/2007, decided on 04.07.08, by Justice M.B Shah, the President.

It is an illuminating vast judgement on the issue in similar case of bank of India and the Hon’ble National Commission in this vast judgement held that (a) the debenture holders are ‘Consumers’ and (b) bank as a trustee has a duty to first verify, at every stage, the financial position of the Company which issued the debentures and secondly to ensure that these assets were at all relevant times adequate to meet the financial obligation of the Company to the debenture holders and Bank should have discharged its duty as a professional corporate trustee and if the loss was caused to the debenture holders due to its deficiency in not taking special care and in not exercising its special expertise as a corporate trustee, which is its profession, then it is liable for its deficiency in service.

In the light of above discussion that OP1 cannot take shelter behind its own deficiency, by relying upon the scheme of Arrangement initiated by OP2, and getting it declared a sick company. The remedy of consumer dispute holder is independent against the bank trustee and not against Company, for bank’s deficiency in not at all times saving the interest of debenture holders.

In the light of above discussion, we direct OP1 bank to pay to complainant a sum of Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 12.5% from date 20.04.03 till payment and we also award compensation of Rs.15,000/- for deficiency and Rs.10,000/- for litigating expenses since filing of complaint in 2003.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 07.04.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)              (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER