Order-16.
Date-17/08/2018.
Sri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows :
That on 27-02-1992 the complainant invested Deep Discount Bond Series-I (bearing certificate No.01238840) issued by the OP and issue price of such Deep Discount Bond was Rs.2,700/-. The face value of such Deep Discount Bond (Series-I) was Rs.1,00,000/- and it has been mentioned in the said Deep Discount Bond that on 31-03-2017 Rs.1 lakh would be payable to the complainant in the capacity of being the bond holder upon redemption of the same from the OP. In pursuance of the terms and condition of the said discount bond the complainant deposited the discount bond to the OP on 21-04-23017 with all necessary pre-requisites. That on 14-07-2017 a sum of Rs.19,214/- had been credited in the bank account of the complainant against redemption of Deep Discount Bond. The Deep Discount Bond clearly mentioned that after 31st March, 2017 the value payable to the complainant under the said bond would be Rs.1(One) lakh upon redemption.
Aggrieved by the said act of the OP the complainant vide letter dated 28-07-2017 requested the OP as to why a lesser amount had been redeemed to his bank account with a further request to redeem the balance amount of Rs.80,786/- in his account.
Further case of the complainant is that the OP vide their letter dated 05-08-2017 informed that upon redemption the due amount of the complainant including interest was around of Rs.18,000/- as the Industrial Development Bank of India has exercised a call option to all the investors who has invested all such Deep Discount Bond and had also communicated the same to all the bond holders personally including print media as well as paper publication. Ultimately the complainant issued a notice dated 25-08-2017 to the OP through his Ld. Advocate in spite of legal notice the OP has failed and neglected to pay the remaining amount of Rs.80786/- to the complainant. The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the OP is deficient in service. Such act of the OP falls u/s.2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Hence, the complainant filed this case for directing the OP to reimburse the total remaining balance amount of Rs.80,776/- with interest at the rate of18 percent p.a. on the outstanding dues in terms of Deep Discount Bond. The complainant further claims Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment due to arbitrary actions on the part of the OP by providing with deficiency in service.
The OP IDBI has contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations of the complainant. The specific case of the OP is that in the year 1992 they issued 3 types of unsecured bonds including the Deep Discount Bond (Series–I) and those bonds were unsecured and offered document clearly communicated the IDBI Bank reserved a right to redeem the said bond. That on 31-03-1992 the complainant purchased one Deep Discount Bond of Rs.2,700/- from the OP Bank and the said bond had a maturity provided by 25 years. The maturity amount was Rs.1(one) lakh payable to the allottee. The holder of the bond had an option to redeem the bond at the interval of 5 years/10 years/15 years and 20 years. The OP bank exercised the call option in respect of Deep Discount Bond (Series – I) on 31-03-2002 and prior notice dated 30-09-2001 was also sent all the bond holders. That prior to exercise all the said call option a notification was published in the newspaper on 10-08-2001 by an attention of all the bond holders and requesting them to communicate any change in the status of the bond holders along with the original bond certificate and other supporting documents. The date of redemption i.e. on 31-03-2002, the face value of the bond of the complainant was Rs.12,000/-. The complainant in spite of notification of the OP Bank neither communicated the bank nor applied with the procedure for redemption of the bond as notified for which the face value of the bond of the complainant remains unclaimed deposit. The OP Bank account also issued reminder by publishing a notice dated 04-06-2010 for the attention of the bond holders and calling upon them to submit the original bonds for redemption. In spite of best efforts and several newspapers publication complainant did not deposit the original bond for redemption for which payment of interest on unclaimed deposit extended the benefit of interest at the rate ofSavings Bank Account as per guidelines of RBI till the date of payment. Ultimately in the month of April, 2017, the complainant approached the OP Bank for redemption of the said bond and the OP duly credited the amount of Rs.19,241/- being the face value including interest to the SB A/c of the complainant. Accordingly the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
In the light of the above pleadings of the parties, the following points necessarily came up for determination.
Point for Determination
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1 : The Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP submitted that the complainant has not availed any service from the OP upon payment of consideration. As such, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ of the OP as defined u/s2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant, contended that OP issued Deep Discount Bond Series – I for a sum of Rs.2,700/- on 27-02-1992 in favour of the complainant. On perusal of the Annexure – A, there is no dispute in this regard and there was a promise to pay Rs.1,00,000/- being the face value of the Bond. The OP partly paid Rs.19,214/- to the complainant upon redemption as it appears from the Annexure – C. Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 the complainant is a consumer of the OP Bank and also availed service from the OP/Bank upon payment of consideration. Thus, this point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP/Bank.
Point No.2 : The Ld. Advocate for the OP contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as Deep Bond (Series-I) was issued from Bank’s office situated at Mumbai. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant submitted though the Bond was issued by Bank’s Mumbai Office but the correspondences were made to the OP having its office at Park Street within the jurisdiction of this Court. On perusal of Annexures - D, E and F, we find that correspondences were made between the parties regarding insufficient refund on Deep Discount Bond (Series – I) within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the question of territorial jurisdiction to determine the case does not arise. The OP/Bank having its office at 101, Park Street, P.S., Park Street is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus this Forum has jurisdiction to determine the case. Accordingly, Point No.2 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP/Bank.
Point Nos.3 & 4 : Both points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Issuance of Deep Discount Bond (Series – I) by IDBI to the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,700/- is not in dispute with an option to either party to redeem the bond on different years with different face values as under :
At the end of 5 years for Rs.5,700/-
At the end of 10 years for Rs.12,000/-
At the end of 15 years for Rs.25,000/-
At the end of 20 years for Rs.50,000/-.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that no redemption notice was served upon the bond holder. On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that notice of redemption was sent to the recorded address of the bond holder. A brief perusal of the record shows that the UPC list pertaining to the year 2001 goes to show that an incorrect address was mentioned. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish that notice was sent to the recorded address of the complainant/bond holder. In fact, the correct address of the complainant is under. :
Sadananda Das,
6/1A, Creek Lane,
Kolkata – 700 014.
Whereas the UPC list pertaining to the year 2001 mentioned the address of the complainant as under :
Sadananda Das,
6/1A, Green Lane,
Calcutta.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that no notice was sent to the correct address of the bond holder/complainant.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP further contended that notices dated 03-10-2002 and 04-06-2010 were duly published in the newspaper calling upon the bond holders to return the discharge original bonds to the OP for redemption. He further contended that the complainant did not return the original bond in terms of notice dated 03-10-2002 and 04-06-2010. Ultimately, in the month of April 2017, complainant approached the OP/Bank for redemption of the said Deep Discount Bond (Series – I) and the OP/Bank duly credited the amount of Rs.19,241/- through NEFT together with interest to the bank account of the complainant. According to her, the complainant was fully aware of the fact that the bond could be redeemed by the OP after completion of any five years term. The redemption of bond by the OP in no manner can be termed as deficiency in service. She furnished photocopy of a judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench – 4 where the District Forum dismissed the complaint, appeal was also dismissed by the State Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission on the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the IDBI disposed the Revisional Application. We have gone through the photocopy of the cited judgment. The facts of the cited judgment is different from the facts of the present case. As such, the cited judgment is not applicable in the instant case.
During argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that paper publication cannot be taken into account as being good service of notice of the exercise of the call option as has been clearly held in the numerous judgments in a case such as this where the OP has failed to provide personal notice to the complainant. As such, the OP cannot escape their liability.
Ruling reported in IV(2015)CPJ 144 (N.C) cited by the complainant shows that National Commission has been pleased to set aside the judgment of the State Commission and also to modify the order of the Forum and direct the OP/IDBI to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- with Savings Bank interest rate from 01-12-2006 till the date of realization, together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
He further cited a decision reported in 2008 (3) C.P.C. 628, IV (2008) C.P.J. 136 (N.C.) of the National Commission. We have gone through the said cited decision. In the said cited decision the National Commission does not carry weight the publication of an advertisement in the newspaper about its intention to exercise the call back option. In the present day very few people have time to read all pages of all newspapers to locate such advertisements. Therefore, the OP/Bank cannot escape its liability by merely publishing something in a newspaper. The above cited decision fully corroborated the case of the complainant.
Ruling reported in II(2011) CPJ 168 (UT Chd.), furnished by the complainant shows that individual notice has not been served on the complainant, OP cannot be said to have exercised the call option in respect of the complainant with effect from 2001. The above cited decisions supported the case of the complainant.
Having regard to the facts of the case coupled with evidence as well as documents on record we find that conduct of the OP/Bank is not proper and there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus, both the points under determination are decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP/Bank.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Complaint Case being No.426 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contests against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in terms of Section 13(2)(b)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
That the OP is directed to pay Rs.80,786/- (Rupees Eighty thousand seven hundred and eighty six only) as balance amount of Deep Discount Bond (Series – I) with interest at the rate of5 percent p.a. to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.
That the OP is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the OP is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution according to law.
