Challenge in this Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner, IDBI Bank Ltd. (Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum) u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) is to the Order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.130 of 2018. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and affirmed the Order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) allowing the Complaint No. 622/2017 filed by the Respondents herein.

02.       In brief, the facts giving rise to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum are that the Complainant No.1, Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur purchased from the Opposite Party No.1, IDBI Bank Ltd. the Deep Discount Bond Series-I No.00043082 to 00043085 in the name of her minor son, Sukhjit Singh, i.e. Complainant No.2 and Deep Discount Bond Series Nos. 00043086 to 00043089 in her own name in the year 1992 at ₹2,700/- each (issue price). The Opposite Party IDBI promised to pay ₹1,00,000/- for each Bond at maturity at the end of 25 years i.e. 31.3.2017 as printed on the Bond Certificate itself. Upon maturity after 25 years, the Bonds in question were submitted to the Opposite Party IDBI for encashment, however, an email dated 20.04.2017 was received by the Complainants informing that IDBI had invited a Call Option to all Investors by exercising its option to redeem the Bonds and further it was also informed through letters and Print Media in the year 2002. At the time of Call Option, the redemption value of the Bond was ₹12,000/- each and at the time of submission of Bonds for encashment by the Complainants in the year 2017, the value of each Bond was ₹19,000/- including interest. The Complainants replied that no such Notice or Letter was received by them. The matter was referred to the Reserve Bank of India and it was then forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman made a Report qua the Call Option and the claim of the Complainants was not acceded to. Hence, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

03.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party IDBI has failed to establish as to whether the communication sent to the Complainants for redemption of Bond was actually received by them or the Newspaper in which Call Notice was published about redemption of the Bond in the year 2002, was having circulation in the locality where the Complainants used to reside in the year 2002. The District Forum has held as under:-

“          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.

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

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.

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.

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”

04.       Consequently, the District Forum allowed the Complaint with the following directions:-

“(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 along with 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.

iv) 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.”

05.       Dis-satisfied with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Parties preferred Appeal before the State Commission. 

06.       The State Commission, after re-appreciation of the facts and the material available before it, dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the finding returned by the District Forum. It was held as under:-

“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 Deed 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.Rs. (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.”

07.       Aggrieved, Opposite Party IDBI is before us.

08.       We have heard Mr. Shashank Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Gurbax Singh, Authorized Representative of the Respondents at some length and have also gone through the material available on record as well as the Written Submissions filed by the parties.

09.       It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants that the Opposite Party IDBI never tried to communicate about redemption of Bond to the Complainants through acceptable mode of Indian Postal since 1992 till 2017; it is a practice that an acknowledgment slip has to be issued by the Postal Authorities against a letter to be sent through UPC, however, the IDBI has failed to produce any such acknowledgement slip issued by the Postal Authorities against the letter sent to the Complainants through UPC informing about redemption of the Bonds. The record produced by the IDBI in support of issuance of the said letter is its own house record and with regard to the postal seal on the said in house record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fakir Mohd (Supra)  has held that “it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time”. It is further submitted that in the case of T.K. Nagarathna (Supra), this Commission has rejected the plea of service of redemption notice under UPC in absence of any acknowledgement. It is further submitted that Complainants was available at the given address at the relevant time and if there would have been any change in the address, the redemption notice had been received back with such postal remarks. Finally, it is urged on behalf of the Complainants that the readers seldom read all pages and columns of the Newspaper and there are plenty of chances missing such call notices published in the Newspaper.

10.       Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party IDBI strongly contended that as per the terms and conditions of the Bonds, both the Parties had the option to surrender/redeem the Bonds in question after every five years at the deemed face value as mentioned in the Bond itself. After 10 years of the issuance of the Bond, in the year 2002 when the deemed face value of the Bond was ₹12,000/-, the Petitioner exercising the Call Option, got published the Call Notices in the several National Newspapers such as Indian Express Chandigarh, The New Indian Express, The Financial Express Chandigarh, Loksatta, Jansatta Chandigarh, Dinamani, Kannad Prabha, Andhra Prabha, Hindustan Times, Deccan Herald, Prajavani all editions on 19.08.2001 and 10.08.2001. In addition to the Public Notice, the Petitioner also issued separate Call Letter dated 30.09.2001 to the Respondents under UCP at their registered address i.e B-15, HMT Colony, Pinjore, Haryana-134 101, however, the Respondents never approached to the Petitioners for redemption of the Bonds. Besides, the Petitioner regularly published Reminder Notices in the National Daily Newspaper about the exercise of said Call Option, however, the Respondents failed to approach the Petitioner for redemption of their Bonds. The Petitioner again sent Call Notices vide Regd. A.D Post dated 12.05.2009 and also on 20.08.2013 to the Respondents at their Regd. Address but still the Respondents failed to approach the Petitioner for redemption of their Bonds. The Respondents/ Complainants, for the first time, vide their letter dated 03.04.2017 approached the Petitioner for redemption of their 8 Bond and on scrutiny, vide e-mail dated 20.04.2017, they were informed that the redemption value of the Bond is ₹19,000/- including interest as the scheme was redeemed on 31.03.2002. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents have not disputed the change in their address registered with the Petitioner at the time of issuance of the Bonds and the same was not updated with the Petitioner. This Hon’ble Commission in the case of Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – Revision Petition No. 3930 of 2013 decided on 25.11.2013  which relates to same subject matter, has already held that in view of the publication as well as the personal service carried out by the IDBI with respect to the Redemption Option, the Complainant’s contention that they did not receive any such notice, is not acceptable.  As such, the Petitioner had complied with all the terms and conditions as per offer document of the Bonds/Scheme and, therefore, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

11.       We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.

12.       The undisputed facts of the case are that the Complainants had purchased 8 Deep Discount Bonds Series – I bearing No. 00043082 to 0043085 and 00043086 to 00043089 of issue value of ₹2,700/- in the year 1992. As per the terms and conditions of the Bond, the Face Value of the Bonds was ₹1,00,000/- each and the tenure was 25 years i.e. upto 31.03.2017. However, both the parties had option to surrender/redeem the said Bonds after every five years at the deemed Face Value as mentioned on the Bond itself i.e. at the end of 5 years ₹5,700/-, at the end of 10 years ₹12,000/-, at the end of 15 years ₹25,000/- and at the end of 20 years ₹50,000/-. The bone of the contentions of the Petitioner is that after 10 years of the issuance of the Bond on 31.03.2002 when the deemed Face Value of every Bond was ₹12,000/-, they exercised the Call Option keeping in view the financial viabilities of the Scheme. The Call Notices regarding redemption of Bonds were published in various National Newspapers and a separate communication was also sent to the Complainants on 31.03.2002 through under Postal Certificate. However, the gist of the arguments of the Complainants is that they were not aware of publication of any such Call Notices and no communication was received by them from the Petitioner regarding the pre-mature redemption of the Bonds. There is a concurrent finding of facts returned by the fora below that the Petitioner has miserably failed to lead a cogent and valid evidence to the effect that the Newspapers in which the Call Notices were published for redemption of Bonds, had circulation in the vicinity where the Complainants were used to reside at the relevant time. It has further been categorically held by the Fora below that the Petitioner could not lead any convincing evidence in support of receiving the Call Letter by the Complainants and in the absence of acknowledgement of the said Call Letter, the Petitioner cannot escape from their liability to pay the maturity amount of the Bonds to the Complainants. In paragraph 6 of the Written Submissions filed by the Petitioner on 08.11.2019, it is submitted that the Petitioner once again sent Call Notices vide Regd. AD Post dated 12.05.2009 and also on 20.08.2013 to the Complainants at their address i.e. B-15, HMT Colony, Pinjore, Haryana – 134 101.  However, the Petitioner has not placed on record any acknowledgement slip of the said Regd. A.D. letter showing that the said letters were received by the Complainants. In the case of IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. T.K. Nagarathna – IV (2008) CPJ 136 (NC) which relates to the same subject matter, this Commission has held as under:-

“          We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that call option exercised by the petitioner was communicated to the complainant through certificate of posting. The petitioner has failed to produce any acknowledgement of the letter/communication sent by IDBI to the complainant. Hence it is difficult for us to accept the contention that the call option exercised by the Bank was in fact served on the complainant. This aspect has been clearly analysed by the District Forum in the following words:-

“          The xerox copy of U.C.P. is produced as Annexure IV, which bears a seal without SPA No. and Regd. No. and the date disclosed on the top of the said document is 5.9.2001 and the date in the seal is 30.9.2001. The opposite party has not produced copy of the letter, which he was sent through U.C.P. By seeing such a bald Annexure, it is not possible to say that opponent has served notice of its call option right to the complainant. Opponent also produced a xerox copy of the Notice i.e., Annexure V which bears a hand written date as 7.10.2002.

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 all newspapers to locate such advertisements. Hence the Bank cannot escape its liability by merely publishing something in a newspaper. It is not the case of the petitioner Bank that it had paid the amount along with the interest accrued to the complainant on 31.3.2002. The money had remained with the Bank which has an opportunity cost. Further though the amount involved in this case is very small the mighty Bank has chosen to litigate up to the level of the National Commission retaining the amount with it of a small investor.”

13.       Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Sita Ram – (2002) 1 SCC 741 with regard to sending of communication through UPC, has held as under:-

“          The tenant has adduced no evidence to discharge such onus as did lay on him. In as much as clause (b) abovesaid speaks of ’notice in writing’ requiring the landlord ’to specify’ his bank and account number to the tenant, service of notice on the landlord is implied in the provision. The most common and usual mode of sending notice is by post. When the notice in writing is to be sent by post and the mode of service is not specified, Section 30 of the General Clauses Act comes into play. The notice should be sent by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the same by registered post which the tenant has failed to do in the present case. The learned counsel for the tenant-appellant submitted that in the absence of mode of service having been specified in the provision, the tenant was justified in sending the notice in writing under certificate of posting and presumption as to service needs to be drawn under illustration (f) of Section 114 of Evidence Act. Suffice it to observe that the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a permissive presumption which the Court may or may not raise depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to an observation made by this Court in Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 445 (para 6), wherein the notices by the management to workmen were sent through certificate of posting which fact was disputed. This court observed __ "We have not felt safe to decide the controversy at hand on the basis of the certificate produced before us, as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time". In the background of the dispute between the parties before us, we do not see any reason why the tenant should not have sent the notice to the landlord through registered post.”

14.  For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the fact that there is a concurrent finding rendered by the Fora below that the Petitioner IDBI has failed to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate that the Complainants had received the Redemption Letter dated 30.09.2001 and the Newspaper in which Call Notices were published had in fact circulation in the residence locality of the Petitioner, we do not find any material irregularity and jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the Fora below warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Act. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been recently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.     Consequently, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, no orders as to the costs.

16.     It has been brought to our notice that an amount of ₹9,77,035/- has been deposited with the District Forum, Chandigarh during the proceedings in the Execution Application No. 02 of 2019. It is directed that the said amount may be released in favour of the Complainants along with accrued interest thereof and balance amount, if any, payable to the Complainants in terms of the order of District Forum, shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today.