PRESENT:      Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant

Ms.Kanwal Walia, Adv. for OPs.

                            ---

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

          Col.Pritam Singh(Retd.)  has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to :-

i)              pay the maturity amount of Rs.48000/- along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 31.03.2002 till payment.

ii)         Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii)    Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that  in March 1992, he purchased 4 Deep Discount Bond (Series–I) certificates for a sum of Rs.2700/- each having face value of Rs.1 lac as on 31.03.2017. As per the terms and conditions of the said Deep Discount Bond certificates, the bond holder had the option to encash/redeem the bonds at the end of every five years from 31.03.1992 for the deemed face value of Rs.5700/- at the end of 5 years, Rs.12,000/- at the end of 10 years, Rs.25,000/- at the end of 15 years, Rs.50,000/- at the end of 20 years. According to the complainant, he did not exercise the option for redemption of the bond. On 29.04.2009, he received a letter from OP-1 wherein it was mentioned that OPs  had exercised the call option on 31.03.2002, and had also issued redemption notice dated 30.09.2004 individually to all bond holders wherein the bond holders were advised to surrender the duly discharged bond certificates to Investors Services of India Ltd, the Registrars for release of the redemption proceeds of Rs.12,000/- per bond.  It was also mentioned in the letter that OPs would not be liable to pay interest on the amount mentioned in the bond certificates after 31.03.2002. It was also mentioned in the letter that notices were sent to individual bond holders. However, according to the complainant, he had not received any notice till date except the letter dated 29.04.2009 (AnnexureC-5). The complainant replied to the said letter informing the Bank about non-receipt of the earlier letter and making a grouse that he is residing on the same address since the purchase of the Deep Discount Certificates. Had any notice been sent to him through letter, he would definitely have received the same. According to the complainant, the act and conduct of OPs by writing a letter and informing him about the call option after a gap of 8 years amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So OPs are liable to pay interest on the maturity amount i.e. Rs.48000/- for the period they have retained the amount as the complainant had been deprived of its profitable use without any reason. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by OPs, the factum of purchase of 4 Deep Discount Bond certificates by the complainant has been admitted. According to OPs, the complainant has deliberately concealed the fact that OPs had the right of recall option after every five years. According to OPs, it exercised this option on 31.03.2002 and advised all the bond holders by publishing notices in leading newspapers in English and regional languages across India on 19.08.2001, to surrender the duly discharged certificates to “Investors Services of India Ltd”, and claim release of the redemption proceeds of Rs.12000/- per bond. Separate notices were also sent to individual bond holders including the complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2001. In the letter, it has been clearly mentioned that no interest will be paid on the bond beyond 31.03.02 i.e. call option date to avoid any confusion. According to OPs, even reminders were issued in leading newspapers in English and regional languages across India at regular intervals of six months. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, Annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        Annexures C-1 to C-4 are the photocopies of Deep Discount Bond certificates purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2700/- having face value of Rs.1 lac as on 31.03.2017. It has further been stipulated in the said bonds that the holders of the bond and IDBI have an option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of every five years from 31.03.1992 for the deemed face value of Rs.5700/- at the end of 5 years, Rs.12,000/- at the end of 10 years, Rs.25,000/- at the end of 15 years, Rs.50,000/- at the end of 20 years.

6.        As per the terms and conditions of the bond, even the IDBI(OPs) had option of “recall” after every five years.

          It has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that OPs exercised this recall option on 31.03.2002 at the face value of Rs.12000/- per bond. The factum of exercise of recall option is proved from the various advertisements published in various newspapers (Annexure R-3 (Colly.).  There is no illegality in exercise of recall option.

7.        The case of the complainant is that no intimation regarding exercise of recall option was ever given to him by the OPs, therefore, he could not redeem the bonds and could not avail the money at that time. The amount admittedly has remained with OPs and the complainant has had no opportunity to use the same profitably.  On the other hand, the case of OPs is that proper intimation was given to the complainant regarding exercise of the said recall option.  According to OPs, the factum of exercising the recall option was repeatedly published in various newspapers. Further individual letters were also sent to all holders of bonds including the complainant. Our attention has been drawn to a computer generated document purportedly issued by the Postal authorities. This document does not bear any stamp of post office. The original receipt has not been placed on record by OPs. So the document placed on record by OPs is not sufficient to prove that any letter was sent through UPC. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the said letter was received by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has deposed in his affidavit that he did not receive any letter regarding exercise of recall option by OPs.

8.        It was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the Ops that from Annexure R-1, it is apparent that the letter was sent to the complainant informing him about the exercise of recall option. So it would be presumed that the said letter was received by the complainant in view of Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance in the case titled as Dalip Singh Gosain Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in IV(2008) CPJ-412. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that communication under UPC is an accepted mode of postal communication. In support of this contention, she has placed reliance upon the case titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. Narinder Pal and  Others, reported in 2007(3) RCR (Civil)-52. There is no dispute about the law laid down in these authorities that communication under UPC is an accepted mode of communication and there is presumption of receipt of the letter after a specific period. However, in the present case, OPs have failed to prove that any letter was dispatched to the complainant. As mentioned above, neither Annexure R-1 bear the stamp of any postal authority nor the original UPC receipt has been placed on record. In these circumstances, the ratio of cases cited above would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9.        Faced with this situation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that publication in the newspapers is a sufficient means of communication and it will be presumed that the complainant had come to know about the exercise of the recall option by OPs. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is contrary to the view expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as IDBI Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. T.K.Nagarathna reported in 2009(1) CLT-108 (NC) in which it has been held that the petitioner (OPs) was not liable to escape its liability merely by publishing an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise its option.

10.       Thus from the evidence on record, it is not proved whether communication was complete to the complainant. Admittedly, the amount was not sent to the complainant and the amount remained with the OPs. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot be denied interest as has been pleaded in the written statement filed by OPs.

11.       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to redeem the 4 Deep Discount Bond certificates having the face value Rs.12,000/- per bond as on 31.03.2002 along with interest @ 18% from the date 31.03.2002 till its realization to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.03.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER