ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for deficiency in service in not paying Rs.1,00,000/- as promised after receiving Rs.10,000/- as investment in the bond which was to be paid after 17 years with interest and for payment of the said amount and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; one Shruthi the complainant is the daughter of Sri R Shamsundar and grand daughter of one Sri MS Rajgopal, the grandfather of the complainant Mr.Rajgopal purchased one bond issued by OP for Rs.10,000/- in the name of his grand daughter Shruthi. The bond was issued by OP on 21.01.2002 with an assurance that after maturity after 17 years a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- will be payable to the holder of the bond.  When 17 years, 6 months was over by September 2019, when the complainant through his GPA holder Rajgopal presented the bond to the IDBI office at Mission Road, Bangalore, they informed to contact Karvy consultants along with documents and they advised him to contact their head office at Hyderabad. When they were contacted, it was informed that a sum of Rs.23,470/- has already been paid on 16.11.2005 through warrant No.4245847 and the account has already been closed.

3.     It is contended that he has not received the said warrant or the money, whereas it is the duty of the op to pay the amount as agreed after maturity. After exchange of letter, OP stopped corresponding. Inspite of repeated request and demand they have not paid Rs.1,00,000/- as agreed. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed Op to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on maturity and also to pay interest on the said amount.

4.     Upon the service of notice, OP did not appear before the commission and placed exparte.

5.     In order to prove the case, complainant has filed the affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2 :   PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

7.     On perusing the complaint, documents, evidence filed by complainant, it becomes clear that, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- at the issue price. OP issued a IDBI deep discount bond 1998-A series. The face value is Rs.1,00,000/- after 17 years and 6 months.  As per the copy of the said bond produced and as per the terms and conditions, both have right of redemption as well as exercising call option period from the date of allotment.

8.     From the correspondences filed and marked, it appears that OP has redeemed the bond on 16.11.2005 by paying Rs.23,470/- under warrant No.4245847 which the complainant has disputed regarding the receipt of the same and also encashment of the same. Series of correspondences have taken place between the complainant and the OPs. As per the bond the period from the date of allotment on 7 years or 12 years 3 months from the date of allotment, OP has to give Rs.25,000/- or Rs.50,000/- respectively and on the holders of the bond receiving the amount as specified above on exercise of the option as aforesaid, the liability of the IDBI hereunder shall standsfully extinguished.

9.     OP has not produced the notice sent through RPAD to the address on record to show that it has issued letter of redemption and further the return of the said registered letter not being delivered to the addressee.  The complainant’s have relied on a decision delivered by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on union territory Chandigarh between IDBI bank VS M/s Surgith Kour delivered on 01.11.2019. On perusing the same, it exactly fits into the facts and circumstances of this case, and it is aptly and rightly applicable. The said State Commission has upheld the decision of the District Commission which allowed and directed the IDBI bank to pay the matured value of the Rs.1,00,000/-. In view of the said decision, we have to hold that OP did not issue any individual notice of its exercise of call option to the complainant prior to or immediately after the due date. No document is produced to show that OP has issued letter and correspondent with the complainant. In view of this we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT No.2:

10.   As we have answered Point No.1 in the affirmative, in the result, OP is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest 12 % per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 16.11.2019 till the payment of the entire amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses. Hence, we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and  pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. OP i.e. Industrial Development Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative is hereby directed pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest 12 % per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 16.11.2019 till the payment of the entire amount.
3. OP further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and strain and further Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. OP  is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report on this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 23^rd day of SEPTEMBER 2022)

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the GPA executed by OP in favour of complainant.

Ex P2: Copy of the IDBI bond

Ex. P3: Copy of the reply letter dt:27.11.2019 from OP.

Ex P4: Copy of the reply form complainant.

Ex P5: Copy of the reply clarifying details of complainant.

Ex P6: Copy of the response of OP dt:30.09.2021.

Ex P7: Copy of the complaint to OP dt:06.09.2021.

Ex P8: Copy of the request for time to reply by OP dt:07.10.2021.

Ex P9: Copy of repeat reply of KARVY.

Ex P10: Copy of request of KARVY for clarifaciton and reply from complainant

Ex P11: Copy of brief by complainant to KARVY DT:14.03.2022.

Ex P12: Copy of the letter of KARVY and reply by complainant dt:22.03.2022.

Ex P13: Copy of the reminder to KARVY for early action.

Ex P14: Copy of last request letter from complainant dt: 05.05.2022.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: - Nil -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*