Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/261/2019

M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreet - Opp.Party(s)

Tajender K. Joshi Adv.

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	261 of 2019
Date of Institution	31.11.2019
Date of Decision	13.06.2022

1. IDBI Bank Ltd. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 through its Deputy General Manager, Shashi Shivrain.
2. IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Deputy General Manager, Shashi Shivrain.

                                                               …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Supreet D/o Sh.Gurnam Singh resident of Kothi No.38, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.    

•  

 

                  

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh.Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. Adityajit Singh Chadha, Advocate for the Respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.08.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (now District Commission-II), U.T., Chandigarh (in the short ‘the District Commission’ only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint against Opposite Parties, with the following directions:-

                     “Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complainant is fully entitled for Rs.One Lakh i.e. the maturity value/amount of the bond on the date of maturity i.e. 31.3.2017. The withholding of full maturity amount of the bond by the Opposite Parties despite its maturity on 31.3.2017 amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complaint as such is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to pay balance amount of Rs.80821/- (i.e. 100000-19179/- already paid by NEFT on 17.6.2017) to the complainant as due on 31.3.2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  The complainant shall return the Bond Certificate and sign/execute the requisite documents in favour of IDBI/OPs, as per their requirement.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased Deep Discount Bond (Series 1) No.0094650 from Opposite Parties on 31.03.1992 at an issue price of Rs.2700/- having face value of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Annexure C-1. It was stated that the said Bond was to mature after a period of 25 years and the Opposite Parties was to pay the maturity value of Rs.1 lac.  It was further stated that the Deep Discount Bond held by complainant matured on 31.03.2017, though the Opposite Parties on 17.06.2017 deposited an amount of Rs.19,179/- in the account of complainant with Punjab & Sindh bank through NEFT against the said Deep Discount Bond.  It was further stated that when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 about less payment, it was told that the bank had decided to redeem the bond pre-maturely by exercising call option right. It was further stated that the complainant also sent a legal notice to 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, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the complainant was minor and guardian was Sh. Gurnam Singh at the time when Deep Discount Bonds in question was purchased from Opposite Parties (Annexure R-1) on 31.03.1992.  It was further stated that the IDBI invited a call option to all the investors by exercising its option to redeem the bonds and it was communicated through letters and print media also in the year 2001.  It was further stated that at the time of Call Option, the redemption amount was Rs.12,000/- against the investment of Rs.2700/- with interest and all the bondholders were duly informed by publishing the Call Option Notice dated 10.8.2001 in leading newspapers across the country in lieu of individual notices to the bondholders and the said notice was published seven months prior to the redemption of the bond on 31.03.2002 i.e. after 10 years period.  It was further stated that upon verifying the bond on 14.06.2017, the Opposite Parties credited the amount of Rs.19,179/- in the account of complainant. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. On a perusal of the records of the learned District Commission, this Commission finds that the respondent is fully entitled for Rs.1 lakh i.e. the maturity value/amount of the bond on the date of maturity i.e. 31.03.2017. The appellants had withheld the full amount of the maturity bond despite its maturity on 31.03.2017. The investment in bonds is a definite contract between the investor and the company. Any party to the contract could not unilaterally do any action to nullify the beneficial effect of the contract. In this case we find that deficiency is writ large on the face of the appellants by not paying the amount due after its maturity on 31.03.2017 and accordingly, the stand taken by the District Commission does not require any interference of this Commission, thus, the appeal stands dismissed.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.881 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 19 days also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

13.06.2022

 

                                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP