State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Chatur Behari Sharma vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 9 September, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 09.09.2013 First Appeal No. 483/11 Sh.Chatur Behari Sharma Appellant House No. 1292, Vakil Pura, Delhi-110006. Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. Respondent Karol Bagh, Opp. Khalsa College, New Delhi-110005. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a DV account bond from the OP on 26.2.92 for an amount of Rs. 2700/-. Against the bond, bank undertook to pay Rs. One lac to the complainant on 31.3.17 and the complainant and the bank, both, had option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of each 5 years w.e.f. 31.3.91 for the face value given therein.
2. The complainants case is that he received a letter dated 29.4.2009 from the OP, that the OP had exercised call option on 31.3.2002, by issuing a redemption notice to the complainant on 30.09.2001 to surrender duly discharge bond for release of Rs. 12,000/-(per bond) also informing him that no interest will be payable on the bond after 31.3.09, and his redemption amount is still lying outstanding, with the OP. The complainant refuted the communication of the OP, denying receipt of any such notice asking the OP to pay him face value of the bond as due on 31.3.2007 Rs. 25,000/- in case the OP wants to settle the matter. In reply, the OP wrote the complainant that as a special case, he may pay the complainant interest at a rate of 3.5% p.a. on quarterly compounding basis on the redemption amount of Rs. 12,000/- from 31.3.2002 date of exercising option, which the complainant refused.
3. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum praying that the OP be directed to pay him redemption value of the bond i.e. after 15 years which comes to Rs. 25,000/-, with interest on that amount from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 @ 10%, expenditure incurred in communication, counsel fee and compensation for harassment, totalling Rs. 65,000/-.
4. The OP opposed the claim and filed his written version that the OP exercised his call option on September 30, 2001 at maturity value of Rs. 12,000/- as per terms of the bond by sending a letter on 30.9.2001 to the complainant under certificate of posting informing him to surrender the bond by December 31,2001 for receiving the redemption proceeds, and that no interest will be payable after 31st March, 2002, and had also widely published through various Newspapers. The complainant did not deposit the bond. The later communicati9on dated 29.4.2009 was sent to the complainant against the same address against which the earlier notice dated 30.9.2001 was addressed.
The complainant was entitled to additional interest at the rate of 3.5% p.a. on submitting the bond according to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India following which the OP had taken the decision to pay this interest. 4. On consideration of evidence of both the parties the District Consume Forum held, and passed the following order ;
In the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant cannot succeed to get redemption amount of Rs. 25,000/-, and other charges as prayed in the complaint. The redemption option of the bond as exercised by the IDBI, was legal and the bank took enough measures to inform the bond holders by issuing Public Notice in leading Newspapers, regarding the redemption of the bond of the value as on 31.03.2002. The bond ho0lders, including the complainant were informed individually also by sending notice under- UPC. The bank is to pay interest @ 3.5% per annum on quarterly compoundable basis from 31.03.2002 on the redemption value of unclaimed bond. It is for the complainant to get the redemption value of his bond alongwith interest as per extended policy of the bank. He may submit the duly discharged bond to get the redemption amount with interest as referred above.
5. That is what brings the appellant complainant in appeal before this Commission.
6. We have heard the appellant in person and Sh. Sumnesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent Bank in this appeal.
7. The contention of the appellant is that he did not receive the communication from the bank dated 30.9.2007 is per se unacceptable, because the admits having received a subsequent communication dated 29.4.2009 on same address. Besides the bank issued Public Notice in various Newspapers, which has been said on the affidavit. The bank has also filed, the postal receipt of certificate of posting of communication sent to the complainant. In the face of all this evidence, it cannot be said that the communication dated 30.9.2001 was not received by the complainant, and his plead in this regard cannot therefore b e accepted.
8. Appeal devoid of any merits is therefore dismissed.
9. FDR, if any deposited by the appellant in this Commission, be released forthwith after obtaining proper receipt and identification.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs, as per law.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc