State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ifci Limited, Ifci Tower, 61, Nehru ... vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahajan on 31 August, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007
Date of institution : 30.11.2007
Date of Decision : 31.8.2012
1. IFCI LIMITED, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
Regional Office
IFCI Bhawan, 1-C, Sector 27-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through
Sh. Bahadur Singh, Manager.
2. Registrar, IFCI Ltd. Sri Venketesh Bhawan, Ward No. 40, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi - 110 020
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahajan son of Shri Hem Raj, resident of Prem Basti,
Street # 22, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
2. Mrs. Chandra Kanta wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Mahajan, resident of Prem
Basti, Street # 22, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 19.10.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Munish Jain, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 661 of 2009
Date of institution : 11.5.2009
1. Ashok Kumar Mahajan son of Shri Hem Raj, resident of Prem Basti, Street No. 22, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
2. Chandra Kanta wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Mahajan, resident of Prem Basti, Street No. 22, Sangrur, Tehsil & District Sangrur.
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Managing Director, The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., IFCI Towers, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
2. Registrar, The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., Sri Venketesh Bhawan, Ward No. 40, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 2
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 19.10.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Munish Jain, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 (IFCI Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Mahajan & anr.) and First Appeal No. 661 of 2009 (Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. Managing Director, The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.). Both the appeals are against the impugned order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(in short the "District Forum") and are disposed off in a single order as in both the appeals the facts, dispute and the question of law involved are the same. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondents') had obtained the services of the appellants/Ops(hereinafter called 'the appellants') by purchasing IFCJ bonds on 6.9.2006 of Rs. 5,000/-. Certificate No. 178311 acknowledging the receipt of payment for the face value of Rs. 5,00,000/- was issued. As per condition of the bond, bond holder could redeem the bonds on the dates mentioned therein. The bond holder was also entitled to the principal amount plus interest till the date of redemption. Appellants denied to pay the amount of the bonds inspite of the fact that they were entitled to First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 3 receive the payment of Rs. 23,000/- on September, 2006 and did not listen the request of the respondents. Respondents wrote letters dated 9.3.2006, 13.4.2006 and also served notice dated 18.5.2006 but nothing had happened. Earlier also the respondents had filed the complaint before the District Forum but the same had been withdrawn by them with the permission to file afresh one. The act and conduct of the appellants amounts to unfair trade practice and the complaint was filed alleging that the appellants were deficient in service and prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 23,000/- due on 6.9.2006 as per certificate, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain and harassment as well as Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the respondents purchased the bond from the appellants. The stand of the appellants was that as per terms and conditions of the bonds mentioned in the prospectus dated 3.7.1996, bond holders as well as the Company has the right to exercise early redemption option and in terms of the resolution passed in the meeting of bond holders held on 25.6.2003, company was authorized to exercise the call option/right to redeem the millionaire bonds at any time after giving two months notice. The company had decided to exercise the call option and redeem the bonds on 6.12.2003 at a value, which was the deemed face value of the bonds immediately before the date of redemption plus the accrued interest till the date of redemption, therefore, the amount payable as per millionaire Option-I bond and Millionaire Option-II bond, as on 6.12.2003 came to Rs. 30,270/- and Rs. 15,135/-, respectively subject to deduction of tax at source. Notice of call option was published in one English and one Regional language Daily Newspaper in First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 4 Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta, Bangalore and Ahmedabad as per terms and conditions of the prospectus. Appellants stands was that they fully complied with the terms and conditions of the prospectus. It was pleaded that the letters and notices of the respondents were replied by appellant No. 2 making the respondents aware of procedure as laid down in the prospectus regarding early redemption of bonds. After issuing the redemption intimation/notice to the respondents, respondents did not surrender the duly discharged bonds for redemption. It was pleaded that everything was done as per terms and conditions of the bonds and nothing was wrong on the part of the answering appellants. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions to the appellants to:-
a) pay to the respondents (CC) a sum of Rs. 23000/- falling due as on 6.9.2003.
b) pay to the respondents (CC) a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment. And
c) pay to the respondents (CC) a sum of Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of communication."
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 was filed by IFCI Ltd. for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2007 and First Appeal No. 661 of 2009 was filed by the respondents for allowing the complaint in toto.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 5
7. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-IFCI on the grounds that as per the terms and conditions of the bond, the respondents/complainants were entitled only for Rs. 15,135/- and not for Rs. 23,000/- as directed by the District Forum, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the respondents purchased Millionaire bond of Rs. 5,000/- bearing Folio No. 5245-993 and certificate No. 178311 under Option-II. On 6.9.2006, the face value of the same was Rs. 5 lacs and the maturity of the same was 6.9.2026. As per Condition printed on the bond the holder/s of the bond and IFCI/appellants had the option to redeem the bond on any of the following dates at the deemed face value, which is as follows:-
Early Redemption Date Deemed Face Early Redemption Date Deemed Face Value (Rs.) Value (Rs.) (per bond) (per bond) Option II Option II On Sept. 6, 1999 7,750/- on Sept. 6, 2015 90,000/-
On Sept. 6, 2002 12,500/- on Sept. 6, 2019 1,70,000/- On Sept. 6, 2006 23,000/- on Sept. 6, 2023 3,15,000/- On Sept. 6, 2011 50,000/- on Sept. 6, 2024 3,65,000/-
9. The appellants decided to exercise the call option and redeem the millionaire Option-I bond and Millionaire Option-II bond on 6.12.2003 at a value which was the deemed face value of the bonds immediately before the date of redemption as indicated on the bond, which was Rs. 30,270/- and Rs. 15,135/- subject to deduction of tax at source.
10. The appellants published the notice of the aforesaid exercise of call option by the Company in one English and one Regional language Daily Newspapers in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkatta, Banglore and Ahmedabad as per the term of issue of Millionaire bond mentioned in the prospectus dated 3.7.1996. The appellants also sent individual notices to all the bond holders to surrender their bonds to take the face value. The appellants again sent individual notices to the bond holders who did not First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 6 surrender their bonds for redemption on 16.11.2004. Even on 1.6.2006 the appellants again sent individual notices to submit the bonds for redemptions who had not submitted their bonds till 1.6.2006.
11. We have perused letter Ex. C-3 dated 9.3.2006 written by the respondents to appellant No. 2 vide which the Millionaire bonds IFCI bond Folio No. 5245-993 was sent by the respondents for the redemption of the same. So from the letter tendered into evidence by the respondents, it is proved beyond any doubt that the original bond was submitted by the respondents only on 9.3.2006 to the appellants.
12. We have also perused reminder to IFCI Family Bond Holders for surrender of bond certificate for redemption of bonds(Ex. R-8) dated 1.10.2005. The relevant portion of the reminder is reproduced:-
"It is observed from our records that you have not surrendered your Bond Certificate(s) for the purpose of redemption. Therefore, you are again requested to submit your duly discharged original Bond Certificate(s) at the office of the Registrar & Transfer Agents (R&TA) of the Company, viz. MCS Limited, Srivenkatesh Bhavan, W-40, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 or at the Registered Office of the Company mentioned above or at any other offices of IFCI stated overleaf.
This reminder was of the notice published in the newspapers on 30.9.2003 and also the individual intimation vide letters to all the bond holders vide which they were requested them to surrender their original bond certificate(s)/transfer the bonds in the demat account of IFCI (if held) in demat form for the purpose of redemption."
13. It is also admitted case of the appellants that a complaint No. 351 was filed by the respondents on 17.7.2006 against the appellants which was withdrawn by the respondents due to some technical defect. In the said complaint, the appellants also appeared and filed the reply to the complaint. So from the reply, it is very much clear that it was very well in the knowledge of the appellants that the respondents had decided to exercise the call option and redeem the Millionaire bond on 6.12.2003 at a First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 7 value which was deemed face value of the bond immediately before the date of redemption as indicated in the prospectus plus the accrued interest till the date of decision at the implicit rate of interest vide its meeting dated 25.6.2003. The information to the bond holders was given through newspapers as well as by individual letters to all the bond holders. But the respondents had not pleaded a single word in the second complaint that neither notices regarding the redemption of bonds were published in the newspapers nor they have received any letter from the appellants for the same or any reminder to submit the original certificate/bond to receive the face value of the same.
14. We have also perused legal notice Ex. C-5 served by the respondents upon the appellants but no such denial was also pleaded in the same.
15. We have also perused the affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar respondent but nowhere in the affidavit it is pleaded that no notice in the newspapers was published by the appellants regarding the decision to redeem the Millionaire bonds from 6.12.2003. There is also no rebuttal to the version of the appellants regarding the letters/reminders sent by the appellants to the respondents as well as other bond holders for submission of original certificate/bond to receive the face value of the bond as mentioned in the same.
16. It is admitted case of the appellants that original bond was submitted by the respondents to the appellants only on 9.3.2006. But as per the above discussion, the respondents are entitled only to receive the deemed face value of the bond immediately before the date of redemption as indicated in the prospectus plus the accrued interest till the date of decision at the implicit rate of interest vide its meeting dated 25.6.2003. As per Ex. R-9, the face value of the bond of the respondents Millionaire First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 8 Option-II was only Rs. 15,135/-, which the appellants offered to the respondents before the District Forum vide cheque No. 750731 dated 19.7.2007 but the respondents have refused to accept the same and did not surrender their bond for redemption.
17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellants rightly offered Rs. 15,135/- to the respondents as per terms and conditions of the bond and decided to redeem the bond after following the proper procedure, as such, in our opinion the District Forum had wrongly concluded that the respondents were entitled to receive for Rs. 23,000/- on 6.9.2003 from the appellants instead of Rs. 15,135/-.
18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by IFCI Ltd. is accepted and the order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Sangrur is modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay Rs. 15,135/- to the respondents. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 15,135/- to the respondents. Rest of the order of the District Forum is upheld.
First Appeal No. 661 of 2009
19. The present appeal was filed by the applicant/complainants with the delay of 534 days. It was submitted that the respondents found that no interest was awarded in the order dated 19.10.2007 whereas the ld. Forum had pronounced interest @ 9% p.a. till the amount is realized. The respondents moved an application for correction in the order before the Ld. District Forum, which was dismissed by the District Forum as the Commission had stayed the order dated 19.10.2007.
20. It is alleged by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants enquired from him regarding the status of both the appeals then it was told by him to the applicants that only one appeal is pending, which is filed by the respondents-IFCI Ltd.. On receipt of this information, the First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 9 applicants informed the counsel that they have engaged him for defending the appeal filed by the respondents-IFCI and also for filing the appeal for enhancement of compensation, though the counsel for the applicants was under the impression that he was engaged for defending the appeal filed by the respondents-IFCI, as such, the delay of 534 days was occurred in filing the present appeal, which was caused due to communication gap between the applicants and the counsel, who has filed the present application as well as appeal on behalf of the applicants.
21. The First Appeal No. 661 of 2009 was filed on the grounds that the bond holder was entitled to principal amount plus interest till the date of redemption, as such, they are entitled for Rs. 23,000/- in September, 2006 but the District Forum did not award any interest on the said amount after September, 2006 and also awarded amount of compensation and litigation expenses on lower side, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified and the complaint may be accepted in toto.
22. We have perused the application as well as the affidavit filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Mahajan-applicant in support of the application for condonation of delay. Nowhere the date in the application as well as in the affidavit mentioned when the counsel was engaged for filing the present appeal and when the power of attorney was given by the applicants to the counsel for filing of the present appeal. No affidavit of the counsel is also tender on the file in support of the grounds mentioned in the condonation of delay application. First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 was filed by the respondents-IFCI on 30.11.2007 and notice of motion was issued to the applicants/appellants on 28.1.2008 and Sh. Tejinder K. Joshi and Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocates appeared on behalf of the applicants in that appeal on 17.3.2008, after the dismissal of the application for correction of First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 10 the order dated 19.10.2007 by the District Forum, Sangrur and it was also dismissed on the ground that the respondents-IFCI had filed appeal against the order dated 19.10.2007 before the State Commission and the order of the District Forum had been stayed by the State Commission.
23. So it was very well in the knowledge of the applicants that First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 was filed by the respondents-IFCI and pending in the State Commission. The version of the applicants is not believable that they have not enquired from the counsel after appearing in appeal No. 1553 of 2007 on 17.3.2008 till 10.5.2009 i.e. for 14 months regarding the fate of appeal filed by the applicants. It is also nowhere mentioned in the application by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants never enquired from him regarding the filing of appeal on their behalf till 10.5.2009.
24. We have also perused the power of attorney annexed with the appeal i.e. also given by the applicants to their counsel on 11.5.2009. If the applicants had instructed him earlier for filing of the appeal on their behalf, they must had given power of attorney to their counsel at that time.
25. From the documents, it is proved that the grounds given in the application for condonation of delay are vague and not sufficient for condoning the delay of 534 days. In case "Muktinath Das versus Smt. Brinda Das" AIR 1990 Gauhati 10, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court Gauhati has observed in para 5 as follows:-
"5. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Prakash Rao (1982) 2 SCC 385, the Supreme Court rejected the prayer for condoning the delay as the person responsible for the delay did not put in any affidavit to support the allegations made in the petition for condoning the delay."First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 11
26. It was also held by the by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Anant Shanker Jadhav Versus Bhasker Gajanan Kadne", I (2012) CPJ 304 (NC) in paras No. 20 to 23 observed as follows:-
"20. In entire application, no cogent and sufficient ground has been mentioned seeking condonation of delay, except for bald assertion that discussions were going on between the parties on the rate of interest and in the hope of settlement, petitioner did not file the revision petition. No details of such discussions have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
21. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner is very careless and gross negligent in pursuing this litigation since earlier also there was delay of ten months in filing of the appeal before the State Commission where petitioner has challenged the order of District Forum.
22. Thus, it is apparently clear that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the State Commission, which calls for interference by this Commission.
23. Under these circumstances, application for condonation of delay being not maintainable is dismissed. Consequently, the present revision petition is not maintainable, as it is barred by limitation, and the same is hereby, dismissed."
27. As discussed above, the delay has not been properly explained, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. On merits
28. As per discussions held in First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007, the applicants-Ashok Kumar Mahajan and Chandra Kanta(respondents in F.A. No. 1553 of 2007) are entitled for Rs. 15,135/- only. FIRST APPEAL No. 1553 of 2007
29. The appellants-IFCI is directed to pay Rs. 15,135/- to the respondents-Ashok Kumar Mahajan and Chandra Kanta within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, if already not paid. However, if any excess amount is already paid by the appellants-IFCI then the respondents(Ashok Kumar Mahajan and Chandra Kanta) are also directed to return the excess amount to the appellants-IFCI within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 12
30. However, both the parties are at liberty to execute the order under Consumer Protection Act.
31. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 24.8.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
32. The appellants-IFCI Ltd. had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 12,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No.1's regional office at Chandigarh by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
33. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
August 31, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 13