Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/868/2022

LT COL DALJIT SINGH MANN (Retd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

CAPT ARUN SHARMA

13 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/868/2022
Date of Institution	:	11/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	13/05/2024

 

1.   LT. Col. Daljit Singh Mann (Retd.) aged about 71 years son of Late Sh. M.S. Mann, resident of House No.1820, Sector 21, Panchkula Pin 134116.

2.   Balraj Mann wife of LT. Col. Daljit Singh Mann (Retd.) aged about 65 years resident of House No.1820, Sector 21, Panchkula Pin 134116.

...Complainants

Versus

 

1.   Small Industries Development Bank of India, (SIDBI) SCO No.119-120, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

2. Small Industries Development Bank of India, (SIDBI) Head Office Vikas Deep, 22, Station Road, Lucknow- 226019, Now Presently at SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg, Lucknow 226001, Uttar Pradesh through its Managing Director.

3. Small Industries Development Bank of India, (SIDBI) Swavalamban Bhavan, C-11, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 through its Managing Director.

 

...Opposite parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Capt.Arun Kumar, Advocate for Complainants (through VC).
	:	Ms.Nidhi Dahiya, Advocate proxy for Sh.Deepender Singh, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the OPs have advertised Deep Discount Bonds for investment and the complainant purchased the Two Deep Discount Bonds in order to secure their future have invested Rs.5000/- (Rs.2500 per bond) and the bonds were to be redeemed after expiry of 20 years with face value of Rs.50,000/- or extra with a face value of Rs.1,00,000/- each as on 1.2.2018. The date of investment if the same is 1.2.1993 and they were to be redeemed as per option by the OPs at the end of 5^th, 9^th, 12^th and 20^th year as per their face values at the end of every such year. Since the matter is over 30 years the complainants are entitled to the face value as mentioned in the bond and simple interest thereof. There was no communication with the OP regarding any terms & conditions having been altered/modified or redeemed. Inspite of making request several times after 2020, with the OP’s no positive reply has ever been given nor any of the communication has been addressed and the complainants were not aware about any information or communication having been sent by the OPs to anybody. As per citation being attached in Appeal No.291 of 2009 the OP issued a public notice on 1.7.2001 and 2.7.2001 in a newspaper for redemption of bond before expiry of maturity period which is not in the knowledge of complainants, however, this option was not exercised by the complainants. However, when the complainant enquired from the OP’s regarding maturity, the OP’s invited the complainants and all investors to redeem the bonds and at the time of redemption of the amount was Rs.9600/- but the present value as of now as admitted by OP is Rs.1 lacs after expiry of 25 years and shall continue after the redeem period having not paid in accordance with the same. As no communication has been received, the complainants are entitle to redemption on the date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that on the face of issued bond itself, provision for call option at the end of 5^th, 9^th, 12^th, 15^th and 20^th year from the date of allotment i.e. February 01, 1993 was clearly indicated. The ‘Call Option’ was communicated to the bond holders at their registered addresses (Annexure R-1). It is further submitted that SIDBI issued notices in various leading newspapers throughout the country on July 01 & 02, 2001 (Annexure R-3 colly). Reminder letters dated May 9^th, 2005, July 3rd, 2006 and March 5^th 2009 were issued to the bond holders (Annexure R-4 to R-6). Since the bond has been closed as per terms of the offer document, SIDBI is not liable to pay Rs.1 lac per bond or any interest amount. It is further stated that the since SIDBI had exercised the ‘Call Option’ in 2002 and as per the extant terms of the allotment, an amount of Rs.9600/- less TDS of Rs.724/- i.e. Rs.8,876/- can be paid per bond to the bond holders. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  
3.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The OP has not disputed at any stage that the Complainant has not purchased two Deep Discount Bonds of SIDBI (Rs.2500/- per bond). From a bare perusal of Annexure C-3 & C-4 it becomes crystal clear that after 25 years, the OPs had to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as the maturity amount being the face value of the Bond in question.
7.     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.
8.     The next contention of the OP’s is that, communication was sent through UCP (under certificate of posting).  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.  After all the Complainant invested his hard-earned money in order to get Rs.1,00,000/- in return after 25 years. 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. We are bound with the ratio of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To immediately pay a sum of Rs.1 lacs on each SIDBI Deep Discount Bonds to the Complainants, along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of maturity of the Bonds till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
13/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member