Punjab

Sangrur

CC/166/2018

Amar Singh Chahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Small Industries Development Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

06 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 166

 Instituted on:   06.04.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     06.06.2022

 

Amar Singh Chahal son of Sh. Kastur Singh, resident of H.No.11-D, Street No.2, Officer Colony, Village Mangwal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Small Industries Development Bank of India, 10/10, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow through its Managing Director.

2.     Deepak Goyal son of Janak Raj, authorized Agent of Small Industries Development Bank of India, resident of Kotla Street, Tehsil Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

3.     Hari Pal Gupta, Advocate (Income Tax Advisor), authorized Agent of Small Industries Development Bank of India, resident of Yash Chaudhary Market, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

4.     Small Industries Development Bank of India, SME Development Centre, Ground Floor, G-Block, Plot No.C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai through its Chief Manager. (OP No.4 given up vide statement dated 4.7.2018).

5.     Link Intime India Private Limited, 247, Park C 101, 1^st Floor, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (West) Mumbai-400083 through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.             

For OP No.1              : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         : Shri J.S.Sahni,

For OP No.4              : Given up.

For OP No.5              : Exparte

                                                

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                ORDER

1.           Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that in the month of November 1992, the OP number 2 and 3 approached the complainant and apprised about the launching of the scheme by OP number 1 and told that if the complainant purchases bond of Rs.2500/- for 25 years then complainant will get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- after maturity date.  As such, the complainant purchased Deep Discount Bond (Series-I) on 30.11.1992 and handed over demand draft number 952398 dated 18.11.1992 of Rs.2500/- and accordingly the OP number 1 issued Deep Discount Bond (Series-I) dated 1.2.1993 having certificate number 00443235 and registered folio number SI03024331-0 in which it was averred that on maturity he will get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Further case of  complainant is that on maturity the complainant handed over all the documents to the OP number 2 and 3 to get the maturity amount, but OP number 2 and 3 told that the complainant will get Rs.9600/- only as maturity amount instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as such the complainant took back all his documents.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 8.2.2018 upon the Ops to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- but nothing was paid. Further it is averred that the OP number 1 says that they closed the scheme in the year 2001, which is said to be unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and also for Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and further an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.           In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objection has been taken on the ground that the complainant has no cause of action and jurisdiction of this Commission was also disputed. On merits, it is admitted that the OP had issued Deep Discount Bond on February 1, 1993 with a maturity period of 25 years from the date of allotment. As regards option to encash/redeem the bond at any early date, the holder of this bond shall have the option to encash/redeem the Bond only at the end of 5^th/9^th/12^th/15^th/20^th year from February 1, 1993 and for the deemed face value mentioned below:

a)   At the end of 5 years for             Rs.5300/-

b)   At the end of 9 years for             Rs.9600/-

c)   At the end of 12 years for            Rs.15600/-

d)   At the end of 15 years for            Rs.25000/-

e)   At the end of 20 years for            Rs.50000/-

 

              Further stated that in view of the above clause OP number 1 exercised the call option in the  9^th year as per the scheme and accordingly OP number 1 published public notice in all leading national and regional dailies on 1.7.2001, Times of India dated 2.7.2001 and Dainik Jagran dated 1.7.2001 informing the unit holders as well as the General Public about the call option  and all the investors were requested to surrender the duly discharge Bond Certificates for redemption. Subsequently, reminders were also sent on 9.5.2005, 3.7.2006 and 5.3.2009. It is further stated that the amount payable at the end of 9^th year was Rs.9600/- and as such no interest is payable by SIDBI after due date of call option i.e. 1.2.2002. The amount payable per bond as on 1.2.2002 aggregates to Rs.8876/- after deduction of tax of Rs.724/- which has already been deposited with Income Tax Department in February, 2002.   The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.           In reply filed by Ops number 2 and 3, it is admitted that the OP number 1 issued bond in question to complainant and the reply filed by Op number 1 is self speaking as such it is stated that complaint qua OP number 2 and 3 is not maintainable.  It is stated that the OP number 2 and 3 has nothing to do with the complaint. It is stated that the complaint be dismissed.

4.           Record shows that OP number 4 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 4.7.2018.

5.           In reply filed by Op number 5, it is stated that Deep Discount Bond was issued by OP number 1 and the offer document contained all the terms and conditions of the issued bonds, one of which was that OP number 1 as well as the investors will have an option to withdraw or redeem the bonds at the end of 5^th, 9^th, 12^th, 15^th, or 20^th year from the date of allotment and as such OP number 1 exercised the call option at the end of 9^th year i.e. 1.2.2002 for redemption of the subject bonds and such redemption was made as per terms and conditions of the offer document. Lastly, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.           The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

 

7.           The learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that on the assurance of the Ops the complainant purchases bond of Rs.2500/- for 25 years whereby the complainant was to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- after maturity date, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 failed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on its maturity, as such alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP has prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.           On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the OP had issued Deep Discount Bond on February 1, 1993 with a maturity period of 25 years from the date of allotment. As regards option to encash/redeem the bond at any early date, the holder of this bond shall have the option to encash/redeem the Bond only at the end of 5^th/9^th/12^th/15^th/20^th year from February 1, 1993 and as such the OP number 1 redeemed the Bond at the end of 9^th year of the scheme i.e. on 1.2.2002 and as per the scheme the complainant was entitled for the sum of Rs.9600/- on that date.  In this respect, public notices were also given in the various newspapers, copies of which are on record as Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/3 and copies of exercise of call option are on record as Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/7. Ex.OP1/8 is the copy of reply of legal notice sent by OP number 1.

9.           A bare perusal of the file and documents produced on record by OP number 1 clearly reveals that the OP number 1 redeemed the scheme on the 9^th year of launching of the scheme i.e. on 1.2.2002 and as such as per the reply of the complaint, the OP number 1 was  liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.9600/- as on 1.2.2002. Further OP number 1 has stated that a tax of Rs.724/- is liable to be deducted as income tax which was paid by the OP number 1 to the income tax department, but we feel that there is no such document showing payment of such amount of Rs.724/- to the income tax department and as such we are of the view that the OP number 1 is not liable to deduct this amount of Rs.724/-.  In view of above, we find that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.9600/- alongwith interest. To support such a contention, the learned counsel for complainant has cited Small Industries Development Bank of India versus Dr. Sarswati Gupta 2015(2) CPJ 11 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held in the similar case that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to prove that due notice for redemption of bond was received by respondent and merely by placing photocopy of letter to bond holder, it cannot be inferred that these reminders were given by OP to complainant and in the absence of proof of intimation to complainant as per terms and conditions of bonds, complainant was entitled to interest on amount retained by OP. Hence, no jurisdictional error and illegality in the impugned order confirmed.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the refund of amount alongwith interest.

10.          As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite party number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant maturity amount of Rs.9600/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 1.2.2002 till its realization. Further, the opposite party number 1 is also directed to pay  an amount of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

11.          The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.          Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.       

                                Pronounced.

 

                                June 6, 2022.