Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/268/2017

Industrial Development Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shyam Sunder Arora - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Narang, Adv.

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	268 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	06.12.2017

 

1. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) through its Branch Manager, Sector-11, Panchkula.
2. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) through its Chairman, having its Head Office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005.  

.…Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1. Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora r/o A-43, Shalimar Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

….Respondent/Complainant.

2. Karvy Computershare Private Limited, through its Branch Manager, having its office at SCO No.2423-2424, Sector 22C, Chandigarh.
3. Karvy Computershare Private Limited, through its Chairman/President having its Head Office at Karvy Selenium Tower B, Plot No.31-32, Gachibowli, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad – 500032.     

…. Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              This appeal has been filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 against the order dated 08.08.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.956 of 2016 filed by the complainant was allowed against the Opposite Parties, in the following manner:-

“11]      In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties with following directions:-

1. To pay the interest amount @9% per annum on the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- from the due date i.e. 25.10.2006 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.10.2016.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount mentioned in sub-para (b) above from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (a) & (c) above.”

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant invested his hard earned money with the Opposite Parties in Flexi Bonds believing that the redemption amount of the same would help him in his old age life and, as such, purchased different IDBI Flexi bonds. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, in turn, paid the due amounts of some of the flexi bonds on their maturity dates but failed to make payment of two IDBI Flexi bonds Folio No.18IFB143134, Distinctive No.0000594679 to 0000594680, dated 17.5.2003, issue price Rs.5000/- per bond, matured on 25.10.2006 at the value of Rs.6350/- per bond. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, in other cases, had issued the cheques in the shape of maturity warrant of the flexi bonds to the complainant, directly in his bank account. It was further stated that when the complainant came to know from his bank account statement that he had not been paid the disputed maturity amount of the above said flexi bonds, he approached the Opposite Parties, whereupon Opposite Party No.4, vide mail dated 6.7.2016, confirmed that the maturity amount of said flexi bonds remained unpaid and they demanded bank account details, cancelled cheque and present address proof alongwith one request letter for making fresh redemption warrant. It was further stated that even after fulfilling the above said requirements of the Opposite Parties, still the maturity amount of the flexi bonds, in question, had not been paid by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that finally, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, whereupon the Opposite Parties credited/released the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- in the account of the complainant on 21.10.2016, but did not pay anything over and above the said maturity amount for retaining the amount for a period of 10 years. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were liable to pay interest on the said maturity amount from the date of maturity i.e. 25.10.2006 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.10.2016.  It was further stated that the complainant made several requests to the Opposite Parties in this regard but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

3.           Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per record, the bond, in question, expired on 25.10.2006 and applicable amount of redemption was released to the complainant through issuance of warrant No.600139915 and cheque No.16100 dated 25.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.12,425/- and sent through registered post vide postal receipt No.BPJR30608975, which was returned undelivered.  It was further stated that ten years old record, as per the norms, has not been preserved/retained by the Bank.  It was further stated that even the complaint/ application was forwarded to the concerned company for taking redressal of the grievances without any fault or delay on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.         Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service and as such, they were proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide order dated 15.12.2016.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.

7.          Feeling aggrieved, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed the instant appeal.

8.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.         Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stated that since respondent No.1/complainant had not intimated his change of address to the Registrar (Karvy) for his investment in Flexi bonds Foli No.18IFB143134, in question, therefore, the redemption warrant was sent to his old address on due date, which was received back undelivered. It was further stated that the Forum did not give any reasons or justification for allowing the complaint of respondent No.1/complainant and as such, the impugned order passed by it deserves to be set aside.

10.       After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

11.       The core question, which falls for consideration, in this appeal, is as to whether the Forum was right in awarding interest on the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- of the Flexi Bond, in question. It is admitted case of the parties that the Opposite Parties credited/released the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- of the flexi bond, in question, in the account of respondent No.1/complainant on 21.10.2016, whereas the maturity date of the said flexi bond was 25.10.2006. It is on record that vide letter dated 08.07.2016, respondent No.1/complainant requested Opposite Party No.4 to remit the maturity amount of the flexi bond in question to his Savings Bank Account, with up-to date interest. Subsequently, vide email dated 18.08.2016, respondent No.1/complainant informed Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 that despite request, he did not receive the payment and the same be paid at the earliest. Similar are emails dated 29.08.2016 & 09.09.2016 (Exhibits C-7 & C-9) requesting the above Opposite Parties to credit the amount in the account of respondent No.1/ complainant. When nothing was heard, respondent No.1/complainant finally vide email dated 21.09.2016 and registered letter of the same date (Exhibits C-10 and C-11) sent legal notice to Opposite Party No.4. This clearly indicates that the appellants, despite repeated communications, did not take prompt action.

12.       As regards the sole ground taken in the appeal that since respondent No.1/complainant had not intimated his change of address to the Registrar (Karvy) for his investment in Flexi bonds, in question, therefore, the redemption warrant was sent to his old address on due date, which was received undelivered, has rightly been rejected by the Forum, by holding that this submission of theirs was devoid of any documentary evidence and thus, not tenable.  It was further held that no document showing any entry made in that regard was brought on record by the Opposite Parties. The appellants have also failed to indicate as to what action was taken by them when redemption warrant was not delivered to respondent No.1/ complainant and was received back.

13.       Qua the grievance of respondent No.1/complainant that he was not given any interest on the maturity of Rs.12,425/-, the Forum rightly held in Paras 9 & 10 of its order as under:-

“9]       Moreover, the defence put forth by the OPs seems to be not trustworthy as the OPs for other flexi bonds purchased by the complainant  (as mentioned in the complaint), paid the maturity amount directly into the bank account of the complainant and strangely they omitted to adopt the same pattern for the disputed flexi bonds.

10]      From the above observations, it is thus proved that the OPs rendered deficient services towards the complainant as they failed to pay the due maturity amount to the complainant in time and also proved their indulgence into unfair trade practice by illegally retaining the due amount of the complainant for a long period of 10 years without any purpose or justification.  However, since the maturity amount has already been paid to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is now entitled for the interest on the due amount for the period it remained pending with the OPs beyond the maturity date.”

When the Opposite Parties, as per their own admission, credited/released the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- of the flexi bond, in question, to respondent No.1/complainant on 21.10.2016 i.e. after ten years beyond the maturity date viz. 25.10.2006, they were supposed to pay interest on the maturity amount  as the amount remained with the Opposite Parties for aforesaid period of ten years. In all fairness, respondent No.1/complainant was entitled to interest on the maturity amount. The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not place, on record, its instructions under which, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were not required to maintain record beyond ten years and, therefore, their plea that they did not have record, is not tenable. In our considered opinion, the Forum, rightly granted interest on the maturity amount of Rs.12,425/- from the maturity date i.e. 25.10.2006 till the date of actual payment i.e. 21.10.2016.

14.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.       No other point was raised by the Counsel for the parties.

16.       For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

17.       Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

18.       File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

06.12.2017.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Ad