Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  16.10.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay the claim amount of the Bond i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only ).
2. The cost of case harassment mental agony etc. may kindly be awarded to the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant was allotted a Deep Discount Bond of ICICI on 28^th May 1997 bearing Bond Holder No. 2106-053, Distractive No. 4414-4414, certificate No. 4414. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. The maturity period of aforesaid Bond was 15 years as redemption dated was 27.05.2012.
3. The complainant residential address has been changed so he informed to the Registrar, 3-1, Infotech Mumbai through the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank frazer Road Patna on 17.01.2012 and requested to Ministry of Corporate affairs, New Delhi for refund of Bond amount. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
4. The complainant came to know after sending application for charge of address that the aforesaid Deep discount Bond of ICICI has been redeemed in the years 2003 and the Bond amount has been transferred to investor Education and Protection Fund.
5. The complainant never received/got any information from the ICICI regarding Deep Discount Bond.
6. On 10.04.2012 when complainant made his grievance to the opposite party through Legal Notice but opposite parties did not pay any heed to the claim of the complainant. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
7. The aforesaid Deep Discount Bond was earned money of complainant and the case is relued at 1,00,000/- over which a court fee by way of postal order Rs. 100/- is being paid.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The complainant Birendra bahadur Pandey jointly with Ms. Annapurna Pandey held one Deep Discount Bond option III of Rs. 11,750/- ( Rs. Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only ) under Bond holder no. 2106053 in the public issue of Bond – Bonds 1997 series 1 issued by erstwhile ICICI Limited. ( Vide Annexure – R/1).
2. As per offer document dated march 5, 1997 under which Deep Discount Bonds were issued where under bond holder/s or the company had a right to exercise the option of early redemption of the bonds at their Deemed face value on the date specified. The same is substantiated by the relevant page 10 of terms and condition of the Bonds. (Vide Annexure – R/2).
3. Further, the said detail of early redemption of bonds with relevant dates and Deemed face value/s were also provided in the bond certificates issued to the bond holders under heading “Main terms and Conditions of the Bonds” against serial no. 3. (Vide Annexure – R/3)
4. ICICI limited merged with ICICI Bank Ltd. during May 2002. ICICI Bank Ltd. decided to exercise the option of early redemption of bonds on May 27/2003. Accordingly notices were published in the “Financial Express” dated November 26/2002 and March 26/2003. (Vide Annexure – R/4)
5. The banks had also dispatched redemption circulars dated March 17, 2003 (along with form 15H wherever income Tax was likely to be deducted at source) by ordinary post to all the bond holders individually requesting then to surrender the bonds certificate duly discharged on or before the record date April 15, 2003.
6. Reminders were sent to all the bond holders who had not surrendered the bond certificates on June 23/2003 April 8/2004, May 11, 2006, March 26/2008 and January 14/2010. All the above said circulars/reminders were sent by ordinary post except the reminder dated January 14/2010 which was sent by the registered post on January 16/2010 vide registration no. 13170. Copy of the postal bulk register towards proof of dispatch is annexed herewith. Reminders were sent to the complainant at the following address registered in the records 3SFB, Block 1, Flat No. 36 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhootnath Road, Patna ( Bihar ) 800020. ( Vide Annexure – R/5)
7. According to the early redemption option. The complainant was entitled for redemption amount of Rs. 27,350/- (Subject to TDS) on the bonds held by him. It is pertinent to say that as per the captioned issue, the redemption proceeds could be released to the bond holder only on receipt of the duly discharged bond certificates. Further as per the terms and conditions of the Bonds, the company would not be liable to pay any interest income or compensation of any kind from the date of such early redemption. This apparent from the terms and conditions highlighted at conditions 6 of bond certificate annexed as annexure III to this written statement also referred on page 13 of the prospectus. (Vide Annexure – R/6)
8. Further in pursuant to section 205c of the companies Act 1956, the unclaimed and unpaid redemption amount became due for transfer to the investor Education and protection Fund of the Government (hereinafter referred to as “IEPF”) in the year 2010. As the complainant had not surrendered the bond certificate before the said date, and as no communication had been received from the complainant either, ICICI Bank Ltd. transferred the entire unclaimed redemption amounts with respect to the said bond (including the redemption amount of Rs. 25,790/- [net of TDS Rs. 1,560/-] held in the name of complainant under bond holder no. 2106053 to the IEPF. (Vide Annexure – R/7)
9. On January 21/2012 ICICI Bank Ltd. received a letter dated January 17/2012 along with copy of the bond certificate and cancelled cheque from the complainant for updation of change in address and bank details for obtaining redemption payment. In response ICICI Bank had vide letter ref. No. 0018099174 dated January 23, 2012 confirmed having updated the change of address and Bank details and also informed the complainant about early redemption of bonds and transfer of his unclaimed/unpaid redemption amount to IEPF.
10. On April 26/2012 ICICI Bank received a legal notice dated April 10/2012 through the complainant’s advocate for payment of redemption amount in full. In response detailed reply was sent to the complainant with copy marked  to the advocate explaining in detail about early redemption of bonds and transfer of unclaimed/unpaid redemption amount to IEPF. (Vide Annexure – R/8)
11. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is evident that the complainant’s claim for payment of redemption amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per redemption date May 27/2012 and compensation is not valid/justified. There is no deficiency in service on part of the ICICI Bank as the bank has exercised its option for early redemption as per the terms and conditions of the Bonds and has taken all necessary steps to inform the bond holder by way of advertisement and through various letters pertaining to early redemption of Bonds. Further, the redemption amount of Rs. 25,790/- (Net of TDS Rs. 1,560/-) payable to the complainant towards the early redemption called by the company have been released to the IEPF in compliance with section 205 C of the companies Act and is not available with ICICI Bank anymore.

4. The Complainant in his reply to written statement as well as an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure has submitted as follows :-

1. The complainant has gone through the contents of the written statements filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 as well as contents and prayer made in the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 and have understood the same, which are under reply.
2. The complainant states and submits that the application filed by the opposite party no. 1 and 2 for deleting the name of the opposite party no. 1 is not at all just and proper because the ICICI Ltd. bonds, which the complainant purchased was issued under the signature of the Managing director and that wise he is necessary party in the case, so the petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure is fit to be rejected.
3. So far written statement filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 against the complaint filed by the complainant is concerned, it is to say that the same is also not acceptable in the eye of law for the reason as given below:

The petitioner purchased the ICICI Ltd. bonds for the period of 15 years in year 1997, which was issued under the signature of the opposite party no. 1 and there was no occasion for the complainant to knock the door of the authority for encashment/redemption of the bond prior to the period of 15 years and that wise he did not approach the opposite parties for encashment of the bonds prior to its maturity.

It is stated that there was a provision for early redemption of the bond prior to maturity, but the complainant was never communicated the decision what is mentioned in written statement. It is stated in written statement that for early redemption bonds a notice was published in Financial Express newspaper dated 26.11.2002 and 26.03.2003, for which the complainant submits that Financial Express daily newspaper is not meant for general public that wise the complainant also did not take any notice from the daily newspaper Financial Express as stated in written statement. So, it is obvious that the opposite parties on exercising the colorable powers to grab the complainant’s amount made a Khanapuri on publishingthe decision in Financial Express newspaper if it was published through the complainant is not aware prior to the averments made in written statement.

However at the cost of the repetition same facts are being repeated for recording our finding.

Firstly it is asserted by the opposite party that the name of opposite party no. 1 Managing Director ICICI Bank has been wrongly added as parties. The complainant in their written statement has stated that as the Annexure – 1 was issued under the signature of opposite party no. 1 hence he has rightly added opposite party no. 1 as a party. This fact has not been controverted by filing cogent evidence and as such in our opinion complainant has rightly made opposite party no. 1 as a party.

The next assertion of the complainant is that the aforesaid Bond had been redeemed in the years 2003 without the knowledge of complainant. On behalf of the opposite parties it has been asserted that the Bank “had also dispatched redemption circulars dated March 17, 2003 (along with form 15H wherever income Tax was likely to be deducted at source) by ordinary post to all the bond holders individually requesting then to surrender the bonds certificate duly discharged on or before the record date April 15, 2003”.

It has also been asserted in Para – 10 of the written statement by the opposite parties that reminder were send to all the Bond Holders by registered Post on Jan 16, 2010 Vide registration No. 13170 ( R/5). It has been stated that unclaimed and unpaid redemption amount became due for transfer to the education in (IEPF) in 2010 and hence entire unclaimed redemption amount with respect to the said Bonds (Annexure – 1) was transferred to the IEPF. It has also been asserted that general Notice was published in Financial Express Newspaper dated 26 Nov 2002 and 26 Nov 2003 and despite that the complainant did not take any action with regard to exercise of option as per terms and condition of the Bond ( Annexure – 1). The complainant in Para – 4 of the reply/rejoinder has asserted that he was never communicated the decision mentioned in Para – 8 of the written statement i.e. with regard to early redemption of Bond about which a notice was published in Financial Express.

It is needless to say that Financial Express daily Newspaper is not meant for general Public rather it is meant for Public who is interested in Financial transaction etc. The complainant has specifically asserted that “that he never received any information/let6ter sent by the opposite parties nor he received reminder as mentioned in Paragraph no. 10 of the written statement sent on 24.01.2010 through registered post”.

In written statement several citation of the Hon’ble Court have been mentioned by opposite parties in support of their contention but the case of the complainant appears to be on different footing.

For the reason and discussion made above we find and hold by exercising option by opposite parties without any knowledge to the complainant amounts to deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

Hence we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to make payment of claim of the Bond i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only ) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay 10% on the aforesaid amount till the final payment is made.

We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ) by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President