AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CHALLENGE in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to order, dated 23.07.2014 in Appeal No. 74 of 2014 filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and held that the Complainant is entitled to 10,000/ -, the amount payable on 01.08.2000, with interest @ 3 1/2% p.a. till the date of payment with 5,000/ - as compensation. Succinctly put, the facts material to the case are that:
THE Complainant Balwan Singh had purchased an IDBI Deep Discount Bond 96 for 5300/ - from the Opposite Party/IDBI. The face value of the bond was 2 Lac as on the maturity date i.e. 18.03.2021 with an option to either party to redeem the bond on different dates with different face values as under:
THIS bond was issued by IDBI on 18.03.1996. The Complainant submitted that he received the early redemption letter dated 29.04.2009 from the Opposite Party but did not receive the redemption notice dated 25.05.2000 requesting him to surrender the bond certificate or else no interest would be payable. The Complainant had pleaded that he was serving in the Army and did not receive any notice; at his station, even the newspaper was not available and that he only received the letter dated 29.04.2009 for the first time and hence requested the Opposite Party to send him the full amount of the bond which became due on the date of receipt of the said letter. The IDBI, in their reply dated 18.09.2009 agreed to pay interest @ 3.5% p.a. as a special case and requested the Complainant to submit his bond. As the rate of interest was not acceptable to the Complainant, he sent reply dated 20.10.2009 declining the offer on the ground that he only came to know about the redemption for the first time on 29.04.2009. While so, on 20.11.2009, IDBI had written a letter to the Complainant stating that they had sent letters to every individual bond holder and also published the said notices in newspapers and sent him a list of UPC showing the Complainant''s name at serial No. 17596. The Complainant averred that though his name appeared at the said serial number, but his address is incomplete as only ''VPO Pauli'' was mentioned, without mentioning the City, District or the State, whereas the addresses were complete in the case of the other bond holders. As the Opposite Party did not show any proof that the communication in the year 2000 was sent to his complete address, there was no question of his family members receiving it. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay 25,000/ - which was payable on 01.12.2006 with interest upto 29.04.2009 at the rates of terms and conditions of the bond and after 29.04.2009 with interest @ 12% p.a. together with compensation and costs.
THE Opposite Party in the reply before the District Forum averred that they had decided to exercise the Call Option available on 01.08.2000 for 10,000/ - and announced this communication vide public notice in various newspapers. Individual notices were also sent to the bond holders subsequently mentioning that the bond would stand redeemed at its face value of 10,000/ - and that no interest shall be payable after 01.08.2000. Reminders were also sent on 22.09.2000 to enable the bond holders including the Complainant, but the Complainant did not surrender the bond for getting the said amount. Thereafter, he was again issued another letter dated 29.04.2009 and as a special case, he was offered additional interest @ 3.5% p.a. on quarterly compounding basis.
THE District Forum observed that the first notice dated 25.05.2000 was sent to the Complainant to an incomplete address and that the Opposite Party did not prove that the said notice was received by the Complainant to exercise his choice of Call Option and hence allowed the Complaint. The District Forum held as follows: "There is no dispute that after 29.04.2009 redemption could have been only on 01.09.2011 for a sum of 50,000/ -. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this bond could have been legally and validly redeemed only on 01.09.2011 for a sum of 50,000/ -. But this amount, was wrongly withheld and is not being paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests and letters, so is certainly gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of 50,000/ - to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from 01.09.2011, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of 5,000/ - for his harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses of 1100/ - against the opposite parties. The complainant shall surrender the bond duly discharged."
AGGRIEVED by this order, the Opposite Party preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed as follows: "Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 4320/2002 titled Madju Soni versus Unit Trust of India, vide judgment dated July 8, 2002, held the termination of scheme as correct.
In Revision Petition No. 2828 of 2007, Vijay Shakti versus Unit Trust of India and Anr, decided on November 22, 2011, it was held by Hon''ble National Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the UTI in respect of the termination of the Scheme.
In view of the above, the respondent -complainant is entitled to 10,000/ -, that is, the amount payable on August 1,000. However, taking it a special case, learned counsel for the appellants has agreed to pay the maturity amount of 10,000/ - which was due as on August 1st, 2000 along with interest at the rate of 3 1/2% per annum (compounded) from August 1st, 2000 till the date of payment and 5,000/ - as compensation. It is ordered accordingly. The respondent -complainant shall surrender the bond duly discharged within 15 days of receipt of copy of order and appellant shall thereafter pay the amount within 30 days."
DISSATISFIED with the order of the State Commission, the Complainant preferred this Revision Petition. The Complainant was present in person and IDBI was represented by learned Counsel Mr. Sumnesh Kumar. Heard both at length.
THE issuance of the IDBI Deep Discount Bond 96 by IDBI to the Petitioner herein, for a sum of 5,300/ - on 18.03.1996, is not in dispute.
THE brief point which falls for consideration here is not with respect to termination of the said Scheme, but with respect to whether the Petitioner herein had received the notices dated 25.05.2000 and 22.09.2009, which were stated to be issued by the Respondent IDBI to every individual bond holder. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Call Option notice was sent to the Complainant under UPC at his notified address and public notices were also published in the newspapers. He relied on a decision of this Commission in Revision petition No. 3930 of 2013 titled Chatur Behari Sharma v. IDBI Bank Ltd. and O in which this Commission held that the contention of the bond holder that he did not receive any communication from the Bank dated 30.09.2007 is per se unacceptable because he admits having received a subsequent communication dated 24.09.2009 on the same address.
THE facts in the instant case are different as it is apparent on the face of record that the address mentioned in the UPC list, dated 28.09.2000, under serial No. 17596, concerning Balwan Singh, who is the Petitioner herein, is incomplete. A brief perusal of the statement shows that against the serial No. 17596 only ''VPO Pauli'' has been stated. Neither the City name nor the State is mentioned. Even the PIN code has not been mentioned. The relevant portion of the UCP list with respect to the Petitioner herein is reproduced as under:
IN para 3.5 of their reply filed before the District Forum, the Respondent/IDBI stated as follows: "That in terms of the provision of the bond issue, as provided in the Offer Document (page 12 of Annexure - 1), IDBI also issued the Call Option Notice dated May 25, 2000 to all the registered bondholders (including the Complainant) and requested them to surrender the duly discharged bond certificate (s)..."
THE aforementioned provision stipulates that individual notices are also to be sent to registered bondholders. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the notices dated 25.05.2000 and 22.09.2009 were sent to the same address and hence the Revision Petitioner cannot state that he received the notice dated 29.04.2009 but did not receive the one dated 25.05.2000. A brief perusal of the record shows that the UPC list pertaining to the year 2000, which shows an incomplete address, only was filed. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish that both the notices were sent to the same address. In fact the Revision Petitioner/Complainant himself filed the notice dated 29.04.2009 which has his complete address as under: "Balwan Singh
VPO Pauli
Dist. Jind
Haryana"
Whereas the earlier notice dated 25.05.2000 had only
Balwan Singh
VPO Pauli
IT is also the Petitioner''s case that being in the Army, he is posted to border areas where it is difficult for him to have access to newspapers.
KEEPING in view that there is no evidence on record to show that the notice dated 25.05.2000 was sent to the correct address, it can safely be construed that the Petitioner came to know about the early redemption option only on 29.04.2009 when he admittedly received the second notice.
THE options which are clearly stipulated in the offer document and the dates of early redemption along with amounts printed on the face of the bond certificate are as under:
WE are of the considered view that as the Petitioner came to know about the Call Option only in the year 2009, he is entitled to 25,000/ - which is payable as on 01.12.2006.
FOR all the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the State Commission had wrongly concluded that both the notices were sent at the same address and were hence, served. Therefore, while setting aside the said observation, we modify the orders of the Fora below and direct the Respondents/IDBI to pay to the Complainant 25,000/ - (payable as on 01.12.2006) with Savings Bank interest rate prevailing as on 01.12.2006. This interest is to be paid on the said amount of Rs. 25,000/ - from 01.12.2006 till the date of realization, together with costs of Rs. 5,000/ - Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of surrender of the bond.