State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Sharma vs Chairman/Managing Director, ... on 12 February, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 384 of 2012 Date of Institution : 21.11.2012 Date of Decision : 12.02.2013 Om Sharma wife of Sh. Anil Sharma, resident of H.No.204, Type-II, MES Colony, Chandimandir Cantt., Panchkula. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1] Chairman/Managing Director, Industrial Development Bank of India, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. 2] Regional Manager, Industrial Development Bank of India, IDBI Tower, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Jasmandeep, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an IDBI Retirement Bond 1996, at the issue price of Rs.5,300/-, in the form of a promissory note, from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties, issued the said retirement bond vide Certificate No.00065643 dated 18.3.1996. On maturity i.e. after 25 years, the complainant was to be paid Rs.2.00 lacs. According to the terms and conditions of the bond, it could be redeemed by the Opposite Parties, on the dates, mentioned therein. It was stated that ever since the purchase of the retirement bond on 18.3.1996, the complainant did not receive any information/ communication/intimation, from the Opposite Parties, regarding its early redemption. It was further stated that, for the first time, the complainant, received the letter dated 29.04.2009, from the Opposite Parties, stating that the bond, in question, had already been redeemed, on 1.8.2000, for Rs.10,000/-. It was further stated, in the said letter, that notice regarding the redemption of bond had been issued on 25.5.2000. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 13.6.2009, to Opposite Party No.1, that she had not received any communication, from them, regarding the redemption of bond, on 1.8.2000. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties, issued a payment warrant dated 2.7.2009, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.13,646/-, which included the principal amount of Rs.5,300/- and interest amount of Rs.8,346/-However, the Opposite Parties, failed to state, as to how, they calculated the interest amount of Rs.8,346/-, which had been done arbitrarily. It was further stated that the legal notice dated 15.10.2009, was served upon the Opposite Parties, which was replied to by them, vide Annexure C-6, but they failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant also suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the redemption amount, as mentioned on the retirement bond; compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint version, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the according to the terms of Offer Document/Bond, they decided to exercise the Call Option available on 01.08.2000, and, redeemed the bonds, by paying Rs.10,000/-. It was further stated that the Call Option Notice as provided, in the Offer Document, was published in various newspapers like Financial Express, Jansatta on 11.05.2000, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran and Delhi Edition on 10.5.2000, through which attention of all the bondholders of IDBI Deep Discount Bonds and IDBI Retirement Bonds, was invited that they had decided to exercise the Call Option, and, accordingly, IDBI Deep Discount Bonds and IDBI Retirement Bonds of Flexi bonds Issue, 1996, would be redeemed by the IDBI, on 01.08.2000, at the face value or the redeemed value, as the case may be It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also issued Call Option Notice dated 25.5.2000, to all the registered bondholders, including the complainant, requesting them to surrender the discharged bond certificate, to the Registrar and Transfer Agent of Bond Issue, for payment of redemption money. It was further stated that the Call Option Notice was published in various newspapers, aforesaid, as also individual notices dated 25.5.2000, was sent to the registered bondholders, including the complainant, that no interest was payable, on the bonds, beyond August 01, 2000. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties also took care to send a Reminder Intimation Notice to the registered bondholders, including the complainant, about the Call Option under certificate of posting. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, on 02.07.2009, issued a payment warrant/voucher, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.13,646/-, which comprised Rs.5,300/- towards principal amount, Rs.4,700/- interest accrued as on July 31, 2000, and Rs.3,646/- towards the additional interest @3.5% p.a. (quarterly compounding), from the date of redemption, upto the date of payment i.e. from 1.8.2000 to 1.7.2009. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were not legally bound to pay any additional interest or damages or compensation, on the bonds redeemed by exercising the Call Option right, but even then the decision had been taken, in favour of bondholders, in line, and, in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, in respect of the unclaimed deposits. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, he did not dispute, about the factum, that the bond, in question, which was purchased by the complainant, and the face value whereof was Rs.5,300/-, was redeemed on 01.08.2000. He further submitted that the complainant received a payment warrant, in the sum of Rs.13,646/-, which included interest. He further submitted that, since the letters were not sent to the complainant, at her correct address, as mentioned in the application form, but at the wrong address, she was caused a lot of mental agony, physical harassment, as also financial loss. He further submitted that the District Forum was required to grant compensation, for mental agony, physical harassment, as also financial loss, caused to the complainant, but it failed to do so. He further submitted the order of the District Forum, to the extent, it did not grant compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, as also financial loss, to the complainant, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant is entitled to compensation and cost of litigation.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, that the respondents were not liable to pay interest on the amount, after the bond was redeemed on 01.08.2000, yet, taking a broader view and, according to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, they (Opposite Parties) issued a payment warrant, in the sum of Rs.13,646/-, which comprised principal amount of Rs.5,300/-, which was the face value of the bond plus(+) Rs.4,700/- as interest accrued thereon, and Rs.3,646/-, towards additional interest @3.5% (quarterly compounding), from the date of redemption, to the date of payment, i.e. from 01.08.2000 to 01.07.2009. He further submitted that the complainant was duly compensated, by way of paying nominal interest and additional interest @3.5% P.A. (quarterly compounding). He further submitted that, by paying interest, the aspect of physical harassment and mental agony, as also financial loss, if any, caused to the complainant, was taken into consideration. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased an IDBI Retirement Bond 1996, at the issue price of Rs.5,300/-, in the form of a promissory note, from the Opposite Parties. Four dates were given in the bond, as to when, the same could be redeemed. One of the dates of redemption mentioned in the bond was 01.08.2000. The Counsel for the appellant, at the time of arguments, submitted that he did not dispute, the date of redemption of the bond, as 01.08.2000, by the Opposite Parties and receipt of a payment voucher/ warrant, in the sum of Rs.13,646/-. He further submitted that the payment warrant was sent to him, on 02.07.2009, and the interest, which was paid, was very nominal and the complainant/appellant was required to be compensated, for mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss. The redemption value of the bond, which was purchased by the complainant, at the face of Rs.5,300/-, as on 01.08.2000, was Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was paid the proceeds on 02.07.2009, to the tune of Rs.13,646/-. The interest awarded to the complainant @3.5% P.A., was on the lower side. The complainant waited for the proceeds of the bond, for a period of nine years, from the date of redemption. One can well visualize the condition of a person, who had invested his hard earned money, in 1996, and even the proceeds of redemption were not paid to her, on 01.08.2000, when the same became due to her, but, on the other hand, paid to her, after a period of 9 years. Had she been paid the amount, when the Bond stood redeemed, she would have deposited the same in the FDR, in the bank and earned interest at a reasonable rate. Keeping in view the mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss, caused to the complainant, she was required to be granted compensation, but the District Forum, failed to do so. It is, no doubt true, that the compensation, must commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. In our considered opinion, if, composite compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, is awarded to the complainant, for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss that would be fair, reasonable and adequate. The appellant/ complainant, is, thus entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss.
11. Not only this, the complainant was dragged to unnecessary litigation, by not making payment of the proceeds of redemption, on the date, on which the bond was redeemed. She had to wait, for a period of 9 years, to receive the redemption proceeds, as a result whereof, she was forced to file the Consumer Complaint. The complainant, is, thus, entitled to the cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly accepted, in the following manner and the respondents/Opposite Parties are jointly and severally held liable and directed as under:-
i. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, to the appellant/ complainant, as indicated in paragraph no. 11 above.
ii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, to the appellant/complainant, as indicated in paragraph no. 12 above.
iii. The amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 15 above, shall be paid, by the respondents/Opposite Parties, within a period of 90 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
12.02.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg.