1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one IDBI Flexi Bond vide Folio No.DD00950038 for Rs.2700/- on 14.5.1992 with maturity value of Rs.1.00 lac as on 31.5.2017 and after expiry of bond period, the complainant on 09.5.2017 issued a letter to the OP claiming maturity value but the OP replied that the redemption value of the bond is Rs.12, 000/- and with interest, the present value of the deposit is around Rs.18000/-.  It is submitted that the OP at no point of time communicated any letter or in any mode by calling option to redeem the bond at the end of every 5 years from 31.3.1992 and the complainant had never come across such a declaration made by the OP.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to pay the assured amount of Rs.1.00 lac as on 09.5.2017 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about purchase of IDBI Flexi Bond by the complainant from IDBI bank on payment of Rs.2700/- vide Folio No.DDBO950038 with face value of Rs.1.00 lac after 25 years from the date of allotment i.e. 31.5.1992.  It is contended that the investor has option to withdraw and the IDBI has the option to redeem the bond only at the end of every 5 years from the date of allotment.  It is further contended that after 10 years i.e. in the year 2002 the IDBI invited a call option to all investors by exercising its option to redeem the bond and the same was communicated to all investors through website of IDBI, personal intimation, general notice and through different print media where it has been declared that at the time of call option, the redemption amount was Rs.12000/- against the investment amount of Rs.2700/- but the complainant did not turn up.  The OP submitted that now the redemption amount including interest comes to Rs.19000/- and the complainant can take his money subject to submission of necessary documents.  With these contentions, denying any unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case IDBI Flexi Bond Folio No. DDBO950038 purchased by the complainant from the OP on 14.5.1992 on payment of Rs.2700/- with maturity value of Rs.1.00 lac after 25 years are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that after 25 years, he claimed Rs.1.00 lac from the OP who intimated the complainant that the said bond has been redeemed in the year 2002 by the IDBI exercising its option to redeem and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.12, 000/- as redemption value.

5.                     The OP in its counter stated that the investor has the option to withdraw and the IDBI has the option to redeem the bond only at the end of every 5 years from the date of allotment and enhanced value will be Rs.1.00 lac at the end of 25 years if the investor/IDBI does not exercise the option to withdraw/redeem the bond.  The OP submitted that after 10 years, in the year 2002 IDBI invited a call option to all the investors by exercising its option, as per condition of the bond to redeem the bond and the same was intimated in various mode of communications but the present complainant did not turn up and hence the IDBI declared the redemption value of Rs.12000/- against the issue.

6.                     Perused the condition ‘A’ of the Deep Discount Bond and found that the bond is having a face value of Rs.1.00 lac with maturity period of 25 years from the date of allotment and the investor has the option to withdraw, and the IDBI has option to redeem the bond only at the end of every 5 years from the date of allotment. In that event, the redemption value will be paid to the investor.  As per the terms of the said offer document, the IDBI has exercised its option and has requested the bond holders through massive advertisements, the copies being available on record to submit discharge bond certificate.  Further through an advertisement dt.30.9.2001 the OP has also given option to the bond holders to reinvest their redemption amount in IDBI Suvidha fixed deposit scheme.

7.                     In this case, the complainant could not exploit the opportunity given by the OP.  After series of intimations on different mode along with personal intimation through Sl. No.83928 vide Regd. Letter No.RN32166167IN, the complainant has not approached the OP with necessary documents to avail the redemption value.  As the OP has exercised its option to redeem as per terms of the said bond, we do not find any deficiency in service on its part.  In the above circumstances, the case of the complainant does not bear any merit which needs to be dismissed.

8.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)