Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/236/2018

Bihari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Chaudhary

09 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/236/2018
Date of Institution	:	24/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	09/08/2019

 

Bihari Lal s/o Sh. Ram Dass, R/o H.No.2207-B, Sector 63, Block No.15, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1]     Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch, SCO 145-146, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Manager.

 

2]     Small Industries Development Bank of India, Vikas Deep, 22 Station Road, Lucknow – 226019, through its Manager.

 

3]     Small Industries Development Bank of India, Plot No.C-11, G-Block, MSME Development Center, C-11, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051, through its General Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.
		Sh. Deepender Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Bihari Lal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Small Industries Development Bank of India and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he purchased one Deep Discount Bond (Series-I)  vide Application No. E5217803 with Regd. Folio No. SI01144300-0, Certificate No.00392932 and Distinctive No.0000392932 in his name in the year 1993 at Rs.2500/-. Opposite Party had promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- at the end of 25 years i.e. 01.02.2018 as printed on the Bond Certificate. Upon maturity after 25 years, the Bond was submitted to the Opposite Parties for encashment, however, the Opposite Parties on 05.03.2018 paid only Rs.8,876/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant. Immediately, the Complainant wrote to the Opposite Parties on 16.03.2018 to pay the balance amount of Rs.91,124/-, but to no success. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.3 filed reply, inter alia, admitting that the Bank had issued Deep Discount Bond on 01.02.1993 with a maturity period of 25 years from the date of allotment. As regards, option to encash/redeem the Bond at any early date, SIDBI exercised the call option in the 9^th year as per terms and conditions. Accordingly, SIDBI published public notice in all leading national and regional dallies informing the unit holders as well as the general public about the call option. Thereafter, SIDBI also issued individual letters at the addresses mentioned in the Bond along with Form 15H/15AA under UPC on 24.7.2001 to all the Investors requesting them to surrender the duly discharge Bond Certificate for redemption. Subsequently, reminders were also sent. Thus, SIDBI had made all effort to reach out to the Bond Holders and to inform them about closure of the Bond and to redeem the same. As indicated in the bonds itself, the amount payable at the end of 9^th year was Rs.9600/- and as such, no interest was payable by SIDBI after due date of call option i.e. 01.02.2002. The amount payable per bond as on 01.02.2002 aggregates to Rs.8876/- after deduction of tax of Rs.724/- which has already been deposited with the Income Tax Department in Feb. 2002. Therefore, SIDBI is not liable to pay balance payment of Rs.91,124/- as claimed by the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the Complainant reiterating his version as advanced in the Consumer Complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.3 and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
7.         The Opposite Party has not disputed at any stage that the Complainant has not purchased Deep Discount Bond (Series I) of SIDBI. From a bare perusal of Annexure C-1 it becomes crystal clear that after 25 years, the Opposite Parties had to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as the maturity amount being the face value of the Bond in question. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant received only an amount of Rs.8,876/- through net banking.
8.         Per pleadings of the Opposite Parties, 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.
9.         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.  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.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

i]      To immediately pay a sum of Rs.91,124/- (Rs.1,00,000/- minus Rs.8,876/-) to the Complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity of the Bond till realization.

ii]     To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;

iii]    To pay to the complainants Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties 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.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
09/08/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”