Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- along with 18% interest from the date of maturity as on 15.05.2007 till date of payment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as Compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he being a citizen of India has invested Rs. 8,100/- in opposite parties deposit scheme named as IDBI deep discount bond on 15.05.1992. After aforesaid investment the opposite parties have issued bond certificate which was to be matured on 15.05.2007 as will appear from annexure – 1. The complainant thereafter visited several times for payment of his bond amount since 2007 but no reply was received from opposite parties.
It is further case of the complainant that suddenly he received a letter dated 29.04.2009 contained in annexure – 2 informing him about the release of redemption proceed of Rs. 12,000/- per bond by way of redemption amount for the deemed face value at the end of 10 years instead of Rs. 25,000/- per bond which is the redemption amount at the end of 15 years.
It is the grievance of the complainant that opposite parties have deliberately and willful avoided to pay the matured amount and as such the opposite parties are bound to pay matured amount of Rs. 75,000/- with interest of 18% per annum from the date of maturity as on 15.05.2007 till the date of payment.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed without affidavit. It is surprising that the aforesaid reply has not been affidavited. However this forum vide order dated 23.03.2010 has directed the opposite parties to file affidavit in support of his reply but no affidavit has been filed and as such in this case only complainant was heard.
As the written statement filed on behalf of opposite parties has not been affidavited hence we do not think proper to take the fact asserted in the affidavit into account.
From bare perusal of aforesaid bond containing annexure – 1 series it appears that in terms of offer document, the deep discount bond has price value of Rs. 2,700/- and either investor had option to withdraw or the IDBI had the option to redeem the bond on any of the dates mentioned in the bond itself.
From careful perusal of bond itself it is crystal clear that deemed face value has been noted against the date of redemption which begins after 5 years and end after 20 years.
From bare perusal of annexure – 2 it appears that IDBI decided to exercise its right of call option on 31.03.2002 and advised all bond holders by publishing the notice in leading news papers and regional language to surrender the duly discharged bond ISIL for release of the redemption amount of Rs 12,000/- per bond.
In annexure – 2 it is mentioned that after exercising of call option no interest is payable on the bond after 11.03.2002.
It goes without saying that IDBI had reserved the right to redeem the bond on any of the date mentioned in the bond certificate itself and as per annexure – 2 the aforesaid right was exercise by opposite parties on 31.03.2002 and the face value of the bond on 31.03.2002 stands 12,000/-.
From bare perusal of annexure – 2 it appears that the complainant has been advised to submit relevant documents and information for receiving the face value of the bond as on 31.03.2002.
It is true that we are not taking into account the fact asserted in the reply (written statement ) filed by opposite parties as the same is not affidavited but the paper cutting of several news papers are in the record from which it appears that the IDBI had published notice requesting the bond holders to surrender their bonds for getting the deemed value of bond as on 31.03.2002.
We do not think proper to ignore all these facts because as per annexure – 2 itself it is crystal clear that IDBI published notice in several papers. The complainant has not denied the publication of notice by IDBI in news papers for exercising the option to redeem the bond.
From annexure – 2 it further transpires that every bond holder were advised to surrender the duly discharged bond certificate to Investor Services of India Ltd. by issuing notices and the complainant has not denied either issue of regular notice or publishing of notice in this regard.
For the reason stated above, we find no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
However, it is open for the complainant to take steps in terms of annexure – 2. We hope that if the complainant file relevant documents/information as per direction contained in annexure – 2 the opposite party will immediately take steps in terms of annexure – 2.
For the discussion made above, this complaint is dismissed without cost with the aforementioned observation.
Member President
