Date of Filing: 05.08.2013. Date of Final Order: 20.03.2014
The case of the Complainant Sri Bappa das is that the proforma Opposite Party i.e. Sri Ahindra Kumar Das made a policy in the bank of Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of S.I.D.B.I. through an Agent (since dead) by depositing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in the name of his minor son i.e. the Complainant by Demand Draft No. 007280 dated 26-11-1992 at Central Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch (Annexure-‘A’). The Opposite Party issued a Certificate No. 00418518 against Application No. E-0456281, Regd. Folio No. ST 01168122-0, Distinctive No. 0000418518, Face Value Rs. 1,00,000/- on terms of payment of Rs. 5,300/- at the end of 5 years; Rs. 9,600/- at the end of 9 years; Rs. 15,600/- at the end of 12 years; Rs. 25,000/- at the end of 15 years; Rs. 50,000/- at the end of 20 years (Annexure ‘B’).
The proforma Opposite Party handed over the said Certificate to the Complainant when he attained adult and he receipt of the same submitted an application for withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- on expiry of 20 years of the Certificate; but the Opposite Parties returned all the documents filed by him due to differing specimen signature recorded in the company record (Annexure ‘D’). The Opposite Parties returned the papers on the false plea of signature of his father in the Opposite Parties office record. He also had been to Kolkata Office but in vain.
Hence, he filed this instant petition of complaint demanding Rs. 50,000/- against the matured value of the Certificate, Rs. 20,000/- against Travelling Cost, Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation cost. Besides, other relief/reliefs entitled to.
He has filed Xerox copies of (1) “A” Cheque of Rs. 2,500/- dated 26-11-1992, (2) “B” Deep Discount Bond (Series-I), (3) “C” Policy terms, (4) “D” Letter of Authorised signatory of Link Intime to Bappa Das dated 28-05-2013 with the petition as Annexure “A” to “D”. He filed the Agentnama appointing Ld. Advocate Mr. Raju Roy as his Agent for conducting the case. I.P.O. of Rs. 100/- enclosed.
On the basis of the petition of complaint DF Case No. 88/2013 has been registered and after hearing on admission point 03-09-2013 was fixed for S/R and appearance. On that date the proforma Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Ahindra Kumar Das entered appearance through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Satadru Roy as an Agent and also files written version. For Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Mr. Sachin Achar, Sr. Executive Investor Relations of LII(P) Ltd. appeared by filing two petitions dated 27-08-2013 (one received on 28-08-2013 and another 03-09-2013) 03-10-2013 was fixed for W/V by Opposite Parties.
On 03-10-2013 written statement of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 has been filed by Sri Sarippatti Sriradha Ramana, Dy, General Manager, Kolkata for S.I.D.B.I. enclosing some documents. The written statement by Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. has been filed under Seal and Signature of Authorised Signatory enclosing some Xerox copies of documents. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Goutam Chakraborty Calcatta High Court appeared for Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 by filing Vakalatnama dated 02-09-2013.
On 29-10-2013 evidence on affidavit of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 has been filed through the Ld. Advocate Mr. Goutam Chakraborty along with some documents under Notarial Seal as Exhibit-“A” to “E”. On 22-11-2013 for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 brief notes of argument has been filed by their Ld. Advocate Mr. Goutam Chakraborty along with Xerox copies of citation of (1) S.C.D.R.C. (UT), Chandigarh, Appeal Case No. 291/2009, (2) Kerala S.C.D.R.C. first Appeal No. A/12/444 (arising out of CC/08/88 of District Trissur), (3) FA No. 384/2012 Om Sharma –Vs- Chairman of I.D.B.I. & Others passed by State Commission, (U.T), Chandigarh and (4) R.B.I. Interest rate on deposit & dated 28-02-2013.
On the other hand the Complainant Sri Bappa das has filed his evidence on affidavit on 09-12-2013 enclosing some documents under a Firisti. Later marked it as Exhibit-1 to 5(without objection).
We have discussed the complaint and from which it has came out that the Complainant has claimed Rs. 50,000/- against the matured value of Rs. 2,500/- invested by his father on 23-01-1996 in the name of his minor son i.e. the Complainant Bappa Das (who was born on 05-02-1987) for a maximum period of 20 years with face value of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable in Five terms i.e. end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th & 20th years against which the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 admitting the same in written version stated about “Call Option” at the end of 01-02-2002 by Notice dated 30-06-2001 in leading News Papers published on 01-07-2001/02-07-2001 in Times of India and The Telegraph & Anandabazar Patrika respectively (Letter ‘B’). They also issued individual Letters along with Form No. 15H/15AA under Certificate of Posting (UPC) on 24-07-2001 to all investors requesting them to surrender the duly discharged bond Certificate for redemption (Annexure letter B/1), Reminder issued on 09-05-2005, 03-07-2006 and 05-03-2009 at the registered address with SIDBI (annexure letter, ‘C’) Second Publication done on 21-12-2005 (annexure ‘D’) admitted that Rs. 9,600/- per bond (Subject to TDS at applicable rates) on redemption at the end of 9 years and ready to pay Rs. 8,876/- after deduction of Rs. 724/- towards Income Tax. The redemption request was forwarded to Sri Bappa Das, Complainant on receipt on 27-05-2013 by Register of SIDBI namely M/S Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd.
They stated that the Deep Discount Bond was applied by Sri Ahindra Kumar Das under signature of Application Form and the redemption request bearing signature of Sri Bappa Das differs with signature on the record of SIDBI and on 28-05-2013 the Complainant was advised to arrange attestation of the Complainant’s signature by his banker with Pan Card.
It was delivered by Speed Post dated 28-05-2013 but without complying with the said instruction he lodged the complaint before this Forum for reliefs. The Opposite Party No. 3 returned back the documents with certificate to the Complainant through Speed Post.
They have claimed that this District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. They acted on the basis of “Call Option” and settled at Rs. 8,876/-. The annexures appear corroborative to the W/V on affidavit.
We have also gone through the W/S i.e. W/V on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 raised objection on the point of lack of jurisdiction stating jurisdiction in Lucknow stating relevant facts, with prayer to dismiss the complaint stating that the Complainant is not a Consumer u/s 2(l)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the same to dispose off with cost to Complainant or otherwise and without passing any order against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 we have gone through the “Annexure-1”.
Evidence on Affidavit of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 on affidavit appears comprehensive to the W.S/W.V the Opposite Parties. The Exhibit ‘E’ appears address of Bappa Das, BEHAR vide Speed Post and not Cooch Behar.
We have gone through the evidence of the Complainant as also perused the Exhibits marked 1 to 5 which substantiate the contents of the complaint but if compared with the W/V / Evidence of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 with its annexures we find it corroborative to the W/V.
Here, we find the claim of the Complainant of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of the original Certificate issued by the G.M. and the M.D. of SIDBI (Exhibit-2) and also Attested Form Executed by the Complainant Bappa Das before Notary Mr. Narendra Ch. Debnath, Reg. No. 29/89 (Exhibit-4) and letter of Authorised Signatory of Link Intime dated 28-05-2013 (Exhibit-4) filed by the Complainant and Xerox copies of Birth Certificate of Bappa Das issued by Department of Health & Family Welfare dated 10-08-1992 and Admit Card of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
We have gone through written argument and the cited decisions.
In the light of contentions made available in the complaint the following points necessarily come before this Forum for consideration.
Points for Consideration
- Whether, the Complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
- Whether, the Opposite Parties have run unfair trade practice and deprived the Complainant from his dues in terms of the Certificate and/or rendered deficient service by not paying the claimed amount.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for and if not to what extent he is entitled to.
Decision with Reasons
Point No. 1.
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act,1986.
Point No. 2.
This forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Opposite Parties carried on their business within the district of Cooch Behar and the Proforma Opposite Party i.e. the father of the Complainant has got his residential address at Tufanganj, Dist.- Cooch Behar in the name of his minor son in terms of Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 3.
From the documents filed it does not appear that the Opposite Parties dealt in unfair trade practice and wrongly denied redemption petition of the complaint of the stated ground on the point of signature of the Complainant which the Complainant misconceived as to whose signature. It is a fact that the application Form might bear the signature of the father of the Complainant as at that time he was aged 9 years and his signature was not required. As the Opposite Parties have sent Exhibit-4 for Attestation of his signature by his banker together with his Pan Card that he got the attestation from Notary is reasonably accepted and until and unless he comply with the said direction in Exhibit-4 in one considered opinion he is not even entitled to get the assessed amount of Rs. 8,876/-.
Now, the question arises as to the Certificate issued by the Opposite Parties, when not disputed answering to Contract Act, the Opposite Parties are bound to pay the agreed amount and by sharing redemption after 9 years by Notification cannot be sustained as the decision is one sided and not approved/admitted by the Opposite Party by surrender as directed. In the certificate issued we find no provision mandatory to obey rather it was optional vide “The Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI)” does hereby promise to pay to Bappa Das, FA/GU Ahindra Kumar Das, Vill.- Kamath Full Bari, Tufanganj, P.O.- Kamath Full Bari, Cooch Behar West-736159. Or order on demand at the Office of SIDBI at Bombay, on February 1, 2018, the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) being the face value of the Bond herein contained, for value received. On the holder(s) of this Bond receiving the amount as specified above on exercise of the option aforesaid, the liability of SIDBI hereunder shall stand fully extinguished.
- In the event of the Bond holder(s) deciding to exercise his/her/their option to encash the Bond at the end of the 5th/9th/12th/15th/20th year the holder(s) shall intimate SIDBI in writing along with the Bond Certificate his/her/their option between 6 months and 3 months prior to the date of encashment.
- This Bond is transferable by endorsement and delivery. If the Bond is held by more than one person, the endorsement shall be made by all the holders.
- The endorsement must be clear and distinct. If the endorsement is in a language other than English, it shall be translated into English immediately below the endorsement.
- If the transferee wants the Bond Certificate to be registered in his/her name, he/she shall send this Bond Certificate to SIDBI, Bombay for being registered in his/her name.
From the discussion herein above, we are satisfied that the complaint is entitled to get the cost of Rs.5,000/- and actual amount of Rs.9,600/- plus Rs.15,600/- plus Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- if those amounts have not been received yet on repudiation/encashment at the end of procedure 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 20th years (matured period) though face value stated at Rs.1,00,000/- with 4 percent compound interest as per R.B.I. rules admitted as rate of interest by the Opposite Parties but from the Complaint petition he has claimed Rs.50,000/- for the policy and not the other amounts in terms. He has also not disclosed anywhere as to whether he has received the same of claims as such hence he has suppressed the material fact. The claimed amount is 20 times within 20 years, as it appears i.e. Rs.50,000/- against interest of Rs.2,500/- as per bond.
As the claim is against Rs.50,000/- on expiry of 20 years we find it not expedient to consider beyond it. Now, the claim of travelling cost Rs.20,000/- and for mental agony Rs.25,000/- is not at all reasonable and acceptable and have not awardable. However, the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- is awardable. He is liable to file from 15H/15AA in terms of Income Tax Act before execution of the Final Order. The Proforma Opposite Party to assist in release of the papers.
In the light of the discussion and observation made in concluding the fate of the points as above, this Forum is satisfied to hold and conclude that the complainant is entitled to get the relief (s) as prayed for.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and dismissed against opposite party No.4. The aforesaid Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay, Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.50,000/- as matured amount of the policy, to the Complainant Shri Bappa Das within 45 days from the date of this order jointly and/or severally. At the event of failure, the Opposite Party shall pay interest at the rate of 9 percent to the Complainant, in default the Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.30/- for each days delay by depositing the same to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, till realization of the entire order amount.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar. Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
