PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as it received the amount of investment from the Complainant but did not pay the interest on that amount.
2) The facts of the case as stated by the Complainant are that the Opposite Party is a Company through which the Complainant invested his money in 8% Relief Bond Scheme. In the year 2002, on enquiry by the Complainant, the Opposite Party informed to the Complainant that 8% Relief Bond Scheme is suitable for the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant invested Rs.2 Lacs in said scheme for a period of 5 years. Again Opposite Party told the Complainant to make further investment of Rs.2 Lacs. Therefore, the Complainant again invested Rs.2 Lacs in 8% Relief Bond Scheme for 5 years. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant a secured refund of investment money at maturity. The investment period was of 5 years. The amount was invested in the year 2003. The Opposite Party did not raise any objection till 2007. However in 2007, stating the notification of RBI, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the maximum limit of investment was only 2 Lacs.
3) The Complainant has further stated that only on maturity of the 1st Rs.2 Lacs investment, the Opposite Party returned the principal amount with interest i.e. Rs.2,96,050/- as per 8% interest relief Bond Scheme. But so far as the 2nd investment of Rs.2 Lacs is concerned, the Opposite Party issued a letter dtd.16/01/08 and informed the Complainant that the amount of only Rs.2 Lacs i.e. the principal amount would be returned. Accordingly the Opposite Party sent a cheque of Rs.2 Lacs to the Complainant. On receipt of the cheque, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party raising objection to sending only principal amount and not paying the interest on it on maturity. The Opposite Party accepted Rs.4 Lacs amount towards the investment in Relief Bond Scheme but paid interest only on Rs.2 Lacs investment but returned remaining Rs.2 Lacs without interest.
4) The Complainant has stated that, the Opposite Party came with the excuse that during the audit it realized that the Complainant had exceeded the maximum limit of investment of two lacs in the scheme. It is averred by the Complainant that there is an audit for every year but the Opposite Party remained silent for 4 years and only after 4 years it communicated the limit of investment to the Complainant i.e. when the Bonds were going to be matured in short time.
5) The Complainant has again pointed out that, the Opposite Party itself had issued the scheme for Rs.4 Lacs promising the maturity amount of Rs.1,92,600/- (Rs.5,92,100/-). Therefore, it should not be permitted to retract from the promise given in the said 8% Relief Bonds Scheme. It is the contention of the Complainant that accepting Rs.4 Lacs and after 4 years latter not paying the interest till that time keeping Rs.2 Lacs with it for 4 long year and then returning them without interest is a shere deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs.96,050/- being the unpaid interest on Rs.2 Lacs invested in 8% Relief Bonds Scheme alongwith interest @ 21% for delayed period, compensation and cost of the complaint.
6) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint –
i) Certificate of holding 8& Relief Bonds, 2002 of Rs.4 Lacs issued by SHCIL(Opposite Party).
ii) Letter dtd.29/05/07 issued by Opposite Party.
iii) Opposite Party’s letter dtd.16/01/08.
iv) Complainant’s letter dtd.05/04/08.
v) Complainant’s letter dtd.05/05/08.
vi) Complainant’s letter dtd.06/05/08.
7) The complaint was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party. Opposite Party filed its written statement wherein it has been specifically stated that the Complainant is not a consumer as the Complainant has invested his amount in the relief bonds for which no consideration was paid to the Opposite Party. The Complainant has invested money in Government of India Bonds through R.B.I. and the Opposite Party has acted as a collecting agent only. No service was rendered by the Opposite Party. Complainant has not deposited any amount of money in the name of Opposite Party.
8) The Opposite Party has further stated that the complaint be dismissed for non joinder of the parties. The investment pertains to the issue of 8 % Relief Bonds 2002 of Reserve Bank of India.
9) Excess investment was returned as per directions of the RBI . R.B.I. is the necessary party but Complainant has not made it the party.
10) The Complainant has expressly singed declaration form and declared that his aggregate investment in the bonds does not exceed Rs.2 Lacs, during 12 month period commencing from 01/03/02. In case at any time the declaration is found untrue, no interest shall be payable to him on the amount of investment found in excess of prescribed limit. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
11) It is further averred by the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party maintains the record of Bond holders, the amount deposited and transferred to RBI mode of payment of interest, maturity date and amount. However, the entire process, scrutiny and eligibility of the bond holder is decided by the R.B.I./ Government of India. Upon maturity, the Opposite Party makes payment of maturity amount to the bond holders.
12) The Opposite Party has further averred that the complaint is regarding the recovery of interest amount therefore, this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
13) The Complaint has invested the amounts under two different applications and on two different dates. On these occasions, the Complainant has submitted duly signed declarations, declaring that he shall adhere to the limit (Rs.2 Lacs) on investment provided by the Government of India in a financial excess amount. The Opposite Party has acted on the basis of declarations. Hence, Opposite Party is not liable for false declaration/mistake committed by the Complainant. It is contended by the Opposite Party that R.B.I. has advised the Opposite Party to obtain a declaration from the investors to the effect that their aggregate investment in the said bonds does not exceed Rs.2 Lacs. The Complainant has initially applied for the said bonds vide applications No.166344 on 14/06/02 for Rs.2 Lacs. Accordingly the bonds were issued to the Complainant vide Bond Ledge A/c. No.SHCMNBL0006959. The Complainant also submitted his declaration on 14/06/02 in this respect. Thereafter, the Complainant again invested Rs.2 Lacs under application No.176803 on 24/02/03 alongwith with another declaration. The Opposite Party then contended that, the Complainant knowing fully well that the limit of investment in the bond being Rs.2 Lacs only, he invested Rs.4 Lacs. He made false declaration
14)The certificate of holding was issued to the Complainant on receipt of specific declaration. The Opposite Party has further stated that, during the audit excess investments (more than two lacs) was noted. Therefore, R.B.I. directed the Opposite Party to return the excess amounts to the investors (Letter dtd.03/03/05 of R.B.I.). Accordingly the Opposite Party returned the excess amounts to the investors.
15) It is specifically denied by the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party had insisted to make deposit qua additional deposit. No false representation was made by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. It was also pointed out by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had invested his money in Government of India Bonds through R.B.I. In fact the Complainant has misrepresented by making false declarations.
16) The Opposite Party has further stated that it had not offered any scheme to the Complainant. Actually the Opposite Party acted on the representation made by the Complainant hence, the Opposite Party can be held liable for the false declaration made by the Complainant and for his mistake. Finally the Opposite Party has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost. The Opposite Party has attached the xerox copies of the applications alongwith the declaration of the Complainant, Circular of the R.B.I. dtd.28/02/2002, Circular of Government of India & notification, R..B.I.’s letter addressed to Opposite Party, Order dtd.18/02/2008 passed by the Hon’ble DCDRF, Pune, Order dtd.29/01/2010 passed by the Hon’ble DCDRF, Rajahamundrya, East Godavari District.
17) Thereafter, the Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in his complaint. The Opposite Party also filed its written argument wherein it reiterated the facts and points mentioned in its written statement. We heard advocates for both the parties and our findings are as follows.
18) The Complainant has invested his money in 8% Relief Bonds of the Central Government through R.B.I. The Opposite Party is the collecting agent of Central Government and R.B.I. In 2002, as per the notification issued by the Central Government and R.B.I., there was a limit for amount to be invested in these bonds and that limit is Rs.2 Lacs only. One cannot invest more than two lacs in the said scheme of Relief Bonds subject to certain exception such as the amount received at the time of retirement, etc. The Opposite Party has also obtained a declaration form signed by the Complainant that “I shall adhere to the limit on investment as provided by the Central Government which is Rs.2 Lacs during 12 months from 01/03/2002. In case at any time such declaration is found untrue, no interest shall be payable to me/us.” Thus, the subscriber has invested amount in the bonds in excess of prescribed limit.
19) The Complainant knew the limit of investment in these bonds was Rs.2 Lacs only. Still he invested Rs.4 Lacs within a span of 12 months. The letter dtd.28/02/02 & 02/03/02 from Reserve Bank, Notification issued by the Government of India dtd.22/04/2002 clearly states the limit on the investment and the declaration given by the Complainant himself clearly prohibits the Complainant from investing more than Rs.2 Lacs. The main dispute between the parties is that the Opposite Party did not pay interest amount on principal amount of Rs.2 Lacs which was in excess of initial investment of Rs.2 Lacs. The Opposite Party has already paid this 1st investment amount of Rs.2 Lacs alongwith interest. The point before us is whether the Complainant is entitled to the interest on the subsequent investment of Rs.2 Lacs with the Central Government. Taking into consideration the declaration duly signed by the Complainant and notification of the Central Government, the Complainant is not entitled to the interest on the subsequent investment of Rs.2 Lacs by the Complainant. Hence, we find no merit in the complaint and hence, we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.36/2010 is hereby dismissed for wand of merits.
ii.There is no order as to cost.
ii Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
