Date of filing: 04.12.2021 Date of Disposal: 12.05.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.454/2021
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
Miss. Anusha.R,
D/o. Sri.K.Ramachanddraiah,
Aged About 30 Years,
R/at: No.18/19/3, 2nd Floor,
-
Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.
(Rep by Sri.K.T.Seshagiri, Advocate)
- V/s -
1) Industrial Development
Bank of India (IDBI),
Having its Head Office
At IDBI Tower, Cuffee Parade,
Represented by its
Chairman & Managing Director.
2) Industrial Development
Bank of India (IDBI),
Having its Branch Office at
Karya Leliune Tower AB,
Flat No.31 & 32 Financial,
Nanda Karmagudu District,
Gowlheel, Hyderabad-500032.
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(Rep. by Sri. T.P. Muthanna, Advocate)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
02. It is not in dispute that, the complainant’s father had paid a sum of Rs.5,300/- and had invested on one bond in the name of IDBI Deep Discount Bond and opposite party had issued the bond in favour of the complainant and its face value was of Rs.2,00,000/- and it matures on 18.03.2021. The bond had the maturity period of 25 years and on maturity the face value was of Rs.2,00,000/- and it could be redeemed for such amount. Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant and opposite party had the liberty to redeem the said deep discount bond after completion of the period as stated in the bond till 01.06.2016 i.e., after completion of 20 years and 02 months and the amount payable would be Rs.1,00,000/-.
03. Further it is not in dispute that, if the bond holder does not exercise the earlier option and IDBI does not exercise the call option to redeem the bond the original maturity value of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid. Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant had received a DD dated: 29.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.15,395/- towards the bond amount. Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated: 20.02.2018 vide EX.P.5.
04. It is the further case of the complainant that, the complainant decided to redeem the bond in the month of June-2016 and demanded to make the payment as per the terms of the bond. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the DD stated above after deducting TDS and the complainant had encashed the same under protest. Further the complainant was entitle for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum after deducting the above said amount of Rs.15,395/-. Further initially opposite party had promised to return the same and later on did not pay it. Hence the complaint came to be filed.
05. It is the further case of the opposite party that, as per the conditions of the scheme opposite party – Bank had exercised the right to call option to redeem the deep discount bond and had issued a notification dated: 25.05.2000 and decided to redeem the bond by 01.08.2000 and the deemed face value was of Rs.10,000/- per bond and the same was clearly stated in the call option notice sent to bond holders and it was published in the newspaper. Further the complainant took the benefit only in 2016 and failed to take benefit of call option made on 01.08.2000 despite been informed to the complainant. Subsequently after 2 years the complainant got issued the legal notice and issued a reply on the said notice vide letter dated: 03.03.2018. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and sought to dismiss the complaint.
06. To prove the case, the special power of attorney holder of the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.6 documents. The Deputy Manager of opposite party - Bank (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 & EX.R.2 documents.
07. Counsels for complainant and opposite party No.1 have filed their respective written arguments.
08. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief sought ?
(3) What order ?
09. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1:- In negative
POINT NO.2:- In negative
POINT NO.3:- As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- PW.1 and RW.1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.
11. According to PW.1 initially opposite party had promised to return Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently they postponed the same on one or the other pretext. The complainant did not produce any documents with regard to the promise stated above said to have been made by the opposite party.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 that, the Bank had exercised the call option to redeem deep discount bond. Further at the time of issuing of the discount bond in favour of the complainant the option to the parties to redeem the discount bond has been informed. Further opposite party had issued notification with regard to the call option in the reputed newspaper. Opposite party No.1 had produced EX.R.1 Xerox copy of IDBI deep discount bond. In which it is stated that, the bond will be matured after 25 years and within the said period the purchaser of the bond can redeem it for a lessor price than the face value and the bond issued authority i.e., the Bank can also redeem it as per the conditions stated.
13. Further opposite party had produced copy of the call option exercised by opposite party and Xerox copy of the paper publication vide EX.R.4 & EX.R.5. On perusal of the same, it appears that, the opposite party gave paper publication with regard to the call option. Further it appears that, the investors have the option to redeem deep discount bond before the maturity period. Further IDBI also reserves the right (call option) to redeem the deep discount bond on the dates mentioned in the bond. Further it appears that, the value of the bond would be the same to both the parties in case early redemption is made by the purchaser of the bond and call option is made by the Bank.
14. On perusal of the table given in the bond it appears that, on 01.08.2000 i.e., after completion of four years and four months the amount payable to investor (deemed face value) would come to Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party Bank had issued the call option in a notification and the call option has been published in the reputed newspaper on 09.05.2000. Further the complainant is entitle for the deemed fund value accrued as on 01.08.2000. It is not in dispute that, the complainant had received a redemption warrant for Rs.15,395/- and the complainant had encashed the same. According to the opposite party the said amount includes additional interest at savings bank rate on Rs.10,000/-. Hence we feel opposite party – Bank had exercised its right of call option and had paid the amount accrued as on 01.08.2000 with interest. Hence any kind of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party cannot be attributed. Accordingly we answer this point in negative.
15. POINT NO.2:- In view of the finding given on point No.1, complainant is not entitle for the relief sought. Accordingly we answer this point in negative.
16. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 12th Day of MAY, 2023)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Miss. Anusha.R the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for complainant side:
- Special power of attorney executed by complainant in favour of her father K. Ramachandraiah – Ex.P.1.
- Copy of the IDBI Deep Discount Bond No.101503539 – EX.P.2
- Copy of the warrant dt.29.07.2016 given by opposite party – EX.P.3
- Copy of the DD dt: 29.07.2016 given by opposite party – EX.P.4.
- Office copy of the legal notice dt.20.02.2018 & RPAD receipts & acknowledgment – Ex.P.5.
- Unserved RPAD cover with postal track – Ex.P.6
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri. Rajendra V. Shenoy, DGM in opposite party Bank (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for the Opposite Party side:
- Copy of the power of attorney dt.15.05.2017 and delegation of powers – EX.R.1.
- Copy of offer documents – EX.R.2.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
