State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Industrial Finance Corp. Of India vs Rosy Rani on 7 April, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.662 of 2013
Date of Institution: 18.06.2013
Date of Decision: 07.04.2015.
The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited, through its
Managing Director, Registered office at IFCI Tower 61 Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 & IFCI Limited, IFCI Bhawan, Plot no.1-C, Sector-
27, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Rosy Rani daughter of Sh. Bhushan Kumar son of Sh. Balwant Rai,
resident of Railway Road, Moga.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate
For respondent : None
First appeal against order dated
30.04.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Moga.
AND
2) First Appeal No.663 of 2013
Date of Institution: 18.06.2013
Date of Decision : 07.04.2015
The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited, through its
Managing Director, Registered office at IFCI Tower 61 Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 & IFCI Limited, IFCI Bhawan, Plot no.1-C, Sector-
27, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 2
Rajeev Singla son of Bhushan Kumar son of Sh. Balwant Rai,
resident of Railway Road, Moga.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate
For respondent : None
First appeal against order dated
30.04.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Moga.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
First appeal no.662 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant (the opposite party of complaint no.167 of 2012) instituted on 05.12.2012, decided on 30.04.2013, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Moga (in short, "the District Forum") accepting the complaint of the respondent in this appeal (the complainant in the complaint). First appeal no.663 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant (the opposite party of complaint no.168 of 2012) instituted on 05.12.2012, decided on 30.04.2013, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Moga (in short, "the District Forum") accepting the complaint of the respondent in this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) and passing the order for compensation therein. Two separate appeals have been preferred against the separate orders of District Forum Moga in the above First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 3 referred two separate consumer complaints. Since, the factual and legal controversy involved in both the cases is identical, hence we propose to dispose of both the above-referred appeals by virtue of this common order, which shall be pronounced in First Appeal No.662 of 2013.
3. The complainant Rosi Rani has filed the consumer complaint no.167 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that she purchased the bonds on 6th September, 1996 for Rs.5000/- with the condition that holder of this bond shall have the option to redeem the bond on any one of the following dates at the deemed face value:
Early Redemption date Deemed Face Value
(Rs.per bond)
On September 6, 1999 Rs. 7,750/-
On September 6, 2002 Rs.12,500/-
On September 6, 2006 Rs.23,000/-
On September 6, 2011 and so on Rs.50,000/-
The complainant never opted to redeem the said bond. The OP sent cheque of Rs.26,216/- on 01.12.2010 through post after deducting the tax of Rs.4054/-, before the scheduled redemption date thereof, more especially, when the complainant has not opted to redeem it. The OP could not redeem it before September 6, 2011, because the OP very well knew that it had to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 4 if OP chose to pay on September 6, 2011. There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP, when the maturity value due against the bonds on September 6, 2011 was Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has been deprived of full benefits of the bonds due to unfair act of the OP. The OP paid the amount of Rs.26,216/- against both the bonds to the complainant, whereas the maturity value thereof on September 6, 2011 was Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that the OP be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest due thereupon against the redeemable bonds in the nature of promissory note issued by the OP, as complainant has not chosen to redeem the said bonds and OP at their own level redeemed it before September 6, 2011. The complainant also prayed for Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
4. Upon notice, OP was set ex-parte before District Forum Moga, vide order dated 24.04.2013.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of ex-parte evidence and arguments, the District Forum Moga accepted the complaint of the complainant ex-parte by directing the OP to pay Rs.73,784/- (Rs.1,00,000/- minus Rs.26,216/-, which was already paid) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e. 01.12.2010 till September 6, 2011 with First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 5 further interest @5% p.a. from September 7, 2011 till its actual payment. The OP was further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.04.2013 of District Forum Moga, OP now appellant preferred the appeal against the same.
6. The facts of another complaint no.168 of 2012 giving rise to appeal no.663 of 2013 are that the complainant Rajeev Singla has filed the consumer complaint no.168 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that he purchased the bonds on 6th September, 1996 for Rs.5000/- with the condition that the holder of these bonds shall have the option to redeem the bonds on any one of the following dates at the deemed face value:
Early Redemption date Deemed Face Value
(Rs.per bond)
On September 6, 1999 Rs. 7,750/-
On September 6, 2002 Rs.12,500/-
On September 6, 2006 Rs.23,000/-
On September 6, 2011 and so on Rs.50,000/-
The complainant never opted to redeem the said bonds. The OP sent cheque of Rs.26,216/- on 01.12.2010 through post after deducting the tax of Rs.4054/-, before the scheduled redemption date, more especially when the complainant has not opted to First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 6 redeem them. The OP could not redeem them before September 6, 2011, because OP very well knew that it had to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, if OP chose to pay them on September 6, 2011. There is, thus, clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP, in as much as, the complainant got encashed the above cheque, the balance amount is still due thereof with interest from the OP to the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that OP be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with due interest against the redeemable bonds in the nature of promissory note issued by the OP, as complainant has not chosen to redeem the said bonds and OP at their own level redeemed them before September 6, 2011, The maturity value due against each bond on September 6, 2011, was Rs.50,000/-. The complainant stood deprived of full benefits of the bonds and hence there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has prayed that complaint be allowed and necessary relief, as prayed for be granted to the complainant.
7. Notice of this complaint was served upon the OP and OP was set ex-parte before District Forum Moga, vide order dated 25.04.2013.
8. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. C-1 and C-9 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to C-8 and closed the ex- parte evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Moga accepted the complaint of the complainant ex- First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 7 parte by directing the OP to pay Rs.73,784/- (Rs.1,00,000/- minus Rs.26,216/-, which was already paid) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e. 01.12.2010 till September 6, 2011 with further interest @5% p.a. from September 7, 2011 till its actual payment to the complainant. The OP was further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.04.2013, OP now appellant has preferred the appeal against the same.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals, as none appeared for respondents in them. First appeal no.662 of 2013 has arisen out of complaint no.167 of 2012 filed by Rosy Rani complainant against OP, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited, whereas First Appeal no.663 of 2013 has arisen out of complaint no.168 of 2012 filed by Rajeev Singla cmplainant. The controversy in these cases is as to whether the OP redeemed the bonds before the maturity date thereof at its own level or not. The plea of the complainants of both the complaints is that complainants never opted to redeem the bonds before the maturity value thereof, which was due on September 6, 2011. The OP of its own sent the cheque of meager amount of Rs.26,216/- on 01.12.2010 to the complainants by deducting the tax before early redemption date, despite the fact that complainants never opted therefor. There is no evidence of the OP company before District Forum on the record, because it was set ex-parte. We have First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 8 examined the evidence on the record of the District Forum in the above referred cases. Both the complainants have filed their respective affidavits of the record in support of their averments. The complainants have especially pleaded in their pleadings as well as in their affidavits placed on record that the complainants purchased the bonds on September, 1996 for Rs.5000/- each. The dates at the deemed face value in both the cases of the bonds were same, as reproduced in the complaint version of the complainants. The complainants of both the cases filed the pleadings as well as the affidavits on oath, stating that they never opted to redeem the said bonds, before September 6, 2011. The OP company caused loss to them by sending the cheque of Rs.26,216/- to each of the complainants by deducting the tax of Rs.4054/-, despite the fact that none of the complainants ever opted for the encashment of the bonds before due date i.e. September 6, 2011. The affidavits placed on record by the complainants in the above referred two complaints corroborate the version of the complainants. We have also examined the photocopy of the unsecured redeemable bonds in the nature of promissory note in favour of Rosy Rani Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 on the record. The deemed face value on September 6, 2011 was Rs.50,000/-, whereas the early redemption date thereof are detailed therein. We find that the deemed face value on September 6, 2011 was Rs.50,000/- for the bonds. It is, thus, evident from perusal of above referred bonds Ex.C-2 and C-3 in complaint filed by Rosy First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 9 Rani and Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 in other complaint filed by Rajeev Singla that the deemed face value on September 6, 2011 for each bond was Rs.50,000/-. The maturity date of the bonds is September 6, 2024 and early redemption option is prescribed therefor. There is provision for early redemption of the bonds on the record. Vide Ex.C-4 in both cases, the amount of Rs.26,216/- is the net amount after deducting the tax of Rs.4054/-, which has been sent to both the complainants. Ex.C-5 is the provisional receipt of Rs.1200/- of Dainik Bhaskar and Ex.C-6 is the receipt for payment of Rs.3250/- to the driver/owner of the car with regard to publication expenses and Ex.C-7 is the publication in the news paper on the record in above referred two complaints. Ex.C-8 is the statement of account of both the complainants on the record. From perusal of Ex.C-8, we find that amount of Rs.26,216/- was credited in the account on 15.12.2010.
10. The submission raised by the OP company now appellant in both above referred appeals, is that the face value was to be paid by the appellant to the respondents of both the appeals, as per terms and conditions of the bonds. It was further submitted that the complainants of both complaints, now respondents in both appeals, are entitled to get the amount as per table given in family bonds on 01.12.2010. It was further submitted that OP now appellant has changed the name of the Company from The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. to IFCI Limited on 05.11.1999 w.e.f. 27.10.1999, as per circular (Annexure A-1). That ex-parte order has First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 10 been passed against it incorrectly. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable, as the Consumer Fora below noted has no jurisdiction to try the case. From perusal of record of the cases, we find that the complaints were instituted in the year 2012 by both the complainants, the address given in the complaint of the OP company was The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. through its Chairman New Delhi. Notice was sent to the OPs on the above addresses, as mentioned on the bonds. The submission raised by counsel for the appellant that no due service has been effected on them by the District Forum in this case carries no weightage. We find that notice was sent to OP and even publication was carried out and thereafter OP was set ex-parte by means of substituted service. If the name is changed as submitted before us from The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd to IFCI Ltd. on 05.11.1999 w.e.f. 27.10.1999, even then when publication was carried out, the OP should have been cautious about it. The complainants of above referred complaints have spent money on the publications and ultimately substituted service was resorted to before District Forum to summon the OP. We do not find any ground to reverse the order of the District Forum on this ground, because repeatedly process was sent and eventually substituted service was carried out upon the OP company. The next submission of counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum Moga has no territorial jurisdiction to try the above referred complaints. From perusal of First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 11 affidavits of complainants of above referred complaints, we find that bonds were purchased by them at Moga, as stated in para no.5 of the affidavits in support of the pleadings of the complaint on this point. The cause of action, thus, accrued within the jurisdiction of District Forum Moga partly, where the bonds were purchased by the complainants and the cheque amount of less money was received at Moga and was encashed at Moga by the complainants. The submission of counsel for OP company is that the they do not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Moga is not tenable, because cause of action partly accrued within the jurisdiction of District Forum Moga and hence District Forum Moga is competent to entertain the complaint. This point is decided against the appellant company of both the appeals.
11. We have not come across any evidence on the record, proving any intimation of the complainants for early redemption of the bonds before September 6, 2011. There is affidavit of the complainants on the record that OP company themselves redeemed the bond before September 6, 2011. The OP company, thus, caused the loss to the complainants by indulging in unfair trade practice as well. We agree with the findings of the District Forum in both the complaints, because OP company by unilaterally redeeming the bonds before September 6, 2011, caused the loss of the amounts of Rs.73,784/- (Rs.1,00,000/- minus Rs.26,216/-, which was already paid) to the complainants. The order of the District Forum Moga is First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 12 found without any illegality in both the above referred appeals and the same are hereby affirmed.
12. As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in both the above referred appeals filed by the appellant company and the both the above referred appeals are hereby dismissed.
13. The appellant company of First Appeal no.662 of 2013 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission, at the time of filing the appeal. This amount be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant Rosy Rani now respondent in this appeal within 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant company to the complainant now respondent in this appeal alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e. 01.12.2010 till September 6, 2011 and further interest @5% per annum from September 7, 2011 till its actual payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
14. The appellant company of First Appeal no.663 of 2013 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission, at the time of filing the appeal. This amount be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant Rajeev Singla, now respondent in this appeal within 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant company to the complainant now respondent in this appeal alongwith interest First Appeals No. 662 & 663 of 2013 13 @9% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e. 01.12.2010 till September 6, 2011 and further interest @5% per annum from September 7, 2011 till its actual payment within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
15. Arguments in both the appeals were heard on 30.03.2015 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER April 7, 2015.
(MM)