State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Idbi Bank Limited vs Ramesh Chander Tiwari on 17 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2010
Date of Institution : 10.9.2010
Date of Decision :
17.05.2011
1. The IDBI
Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005, through its
Manager.
2. The IDBI
Bank Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
.Appellants.
Vs.
Ramesh Chander Tiwari s/o Sh.Bachi Ram resident of House
No.1555/1, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.
.
Respondent.
BEFORE: HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants namely
1. The IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005, through its Manager.
2. The IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
It is pertinent to mention here that appellant No.1 was not arrayed as opposite party alongwith appellant No.2 by the complainant, before the learned District Forum, and the order passed by the learned District Forum is only against appellant No.2. Therefore, the appeal filed by appellant No.1, is not maintainable as he was not impleaded as OP, by the complainant, before the learned District Forum.
2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1 against the order, dated 27.7.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1459 of 2009 vide which, the complainant was held entitled to Rs.25,000/- on 1.12.2006 and was, thereafter, to get interest at the saving bank rate of 4% p.a. till the amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to him. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation cost. It was further directed that amount shall be paid, within 30 days, failing which, the OP would be liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @9% p.a. since 1.12.2006 till its payment to the complainant.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the OP introduced a scheme namely IDBI Deep Discount Bond96, in the year 1995-96 vide which, if a person deposited a sum of Rs.5300/- in the abovesaid scheme then he could withdraw his amount so invested in the said bond on four occasions i.e. on 1.8.2000, 1.12.2006, 1.9.2011 and 1.6.2016. The break up of the amount so payable on the abovesaid dates, specifically mentioned in the bond as Rs.10,000/- ; Rs.25,000/- ; Rs.50,000/- ; and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. It was stated that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5300/- through account payee cheque on 13.3.1996 in the IDBI Deep Discount Bond96 and an acknowledgment was issued by the OP of the receipt of the said amount. It was further stated that the complainant was in need of money. Therefore, he decided to withdraw the amount, so deposited by him in the abovesaid bond. The complainant approached the OP and enquired from the concerned officials of it, about the procedure, for withdrawal of amount, but he was astonished to know from them, that the scheme was closed by the bank way back in 2000 or 2001 without any notice to him and only a sum of Rs.10000/- was payable to him, under the scheme. The complainant made a written request to the OP on 2.6.2009 for making the payment. In response to the said representation the OP intimated the complainant vide letter dated 25.6.2009 that under Clause 5, in view of the withdrawl of the scheme, the bond was to be deposited with the bank. It was stated that the abovesaid act of the OP amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.
4. Reply was filed by the OP wherein it admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the complainant was given the option to withdraw the bond on the dates mentioned in the offer document/bond. However the OP also had right to exercise call option, on the same dates, and this fact had been clearly printed on the face of the offer document as well as on the bond certificate. It was further stated that the complainant had not disclosed this fact to the learned District Forum with an intention to misguide it. It was further stated that the individual notice dated 25.5.2000 was sent to the complainant, in exercise of call option under certificate of posting (UPC) at his registered address, at which, his bonds were also sent and that the redemption money was payable only after surrender of the original bond certificate duly discharged by the bondholder, as also mentioned in the call option letter, as well as, in the public notices published in various English and Hindi news dailies on various dates in Chandigarh as well as in whole of India. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in service, on the part of OP nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.
7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Forum, the OP/appellant filed the instant appeal.
8. We have heard Sh.Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellant/OP, Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent/complainant and, have perused the record, carefully.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP argued that as per the conditions of the bond certificate, the OP exercised the call option to redeem the deep discount bonds. In order to redeem the abovesaid bonds, the OP informed each and every bond holders, through publication, in newspapers and individual notices were also sent under UPC to the respective bond holders alongwith the complainant, in order to surrender the duly discharged bonds certificate to RT Agents, on or before 15.7.2000 to enable them to receive the redemption proceeds. It was further submitted that the call option notice was despatched to the complainant, by the OP under UPC at his registered address at House No.1555/1, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh. However, the address on the UPC receipt was only indicative for the purpose of identification and evidence for dispatch. It was further stated that it was not possible to have the entire address written thereon due to constraint of space. It was further stated that the District Forum simply presumed that the notice sent by the OP did not bear the complete address and hence, the complainant was not duly served. It was further stated that the District Forum dismissed the complaint solely, on this ground, whereas from the record, it was apparent that the complainant was duly served through publication in the newspapers, as well as through individual notice, which was sent to him at his given address. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP and the order passed by the learned District Forum was liable to be set aside.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the OP did not inform him, as no notice was ever received by him from the OP regarding the redemption of the bonds. Rather he came to know about it, that the scheme was closed, by the bank way back in 2000-2001, when he went to the office of the OP for encashment of the aforesaid bonds, since he was in need of money. Thereafter, he made a representation on 2.6.2009, and requested the OP, for the refund of the amount as per the agreement & undertaking given in the bonds, as the same had not been redeemed till date. It was further stated that the decision taken by the OP in closing the scheme, was illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unilateral. It was further stated that vide letter dated 25.6.2009, the OP intimated that, in view of the withdrawal of the Scheme, under Clause 5, the bonds be deposited with the bank. He further submitted that since the OP had failed to inform him regarding the redemption of bonds, there was deficiency, in service, on its part and the complainant was entitled for the refund of the amount, as mentioned in the bond.
11. According to the appellant, it exercised the call option, as per the terms and conditions of the bonds, for redemption thereof, from a particular date, mentioned therein (bonds), by publication of notices in the leading newspapers as also by means of individual notice sent to the bond holders. However, on perusal of the receipt of the UPC, it becomes clear that there was only mention of house number but the sector number was missing. Without mentioning the sector number, the notice could not possibly reach the addressee, for want of complete address. Since the individual notice of exercise of call option, was not sent at the correct address of the addressee/complainant, his assertion that he did not receive the same is correct. Moreover no other proof of personal service of the complainant was placed on record by the OP particularly when, he specifically denied this fact and also tendered his affidavit, in regard thereto. Hence, it was established that the OP did not satisfy the condition for early redemption of the bonds. The said bonds purchased by the complainant, were not redeemed till the year 2006. The complainant was, thus, entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2006 as per the scheme i.e. IDBI Deep Discount Bond 96 floated by the OP. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, that there was deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, by not making the payment of the due amount, to the complainant. The District Forum was right in holding so.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by appellant No.2 is dismissed, being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs, and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.
13. The appeal, filed by appellant No.1, is dismissed, being not maintainable.
14. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
17th May, 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE
SHAM SUNDER]
PRESIDENT
Sd/- [NEENA
SANDHU]
MEMBER
RB
APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2010
Present: Sh.Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent.
-.-
Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1 has been dismissed.
17.5.2011 (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) Rb/-