BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.441 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 08.12.2020

      Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

Rajinder Kumar Gupta aged about 63 years S/o Sh. Makkhan Lal R/o EG-898, Mohalla Gobind Garh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI Bank), Bombay   Palace, 136, Cool Road, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Representative.

2. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI Bank Zonal Office Punjab), SCO-72/73, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017, through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Zonal Manager/Representative.

3. KFIN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., IDBI Bonds Deptt., Selenium Tower B, Plot No.31-32, Gachibowli, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-500032, Through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Founder/Representative.

4. Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. (registrar for IDBI Bonds) Plot No.17 to 24, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. K. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Sitab Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 31.01.1997, the complainant purchased an IDBI Deep Discount Bond, 1997 bearing no.FDD128996 417313 Certificate No.1173196 from OPs No.1 and 2 and paid a sum of Rs.5500/-. As per IDBI Deep Discount Bond, the OPs No.1 & 2  assured the bond holder that the bond holder shall have option to redeem the bond on any of the following dates at the deemed face value mentioned as under:-

reads as under:-

                   Or order on demand at the head office of IDBI at Mumbai on January 31, 2022, the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- will be payable to the holder. It was made clear by the OPs at the time of purchase of deep discount bond, that if the bond holder made demand of money between middle of the above said maturity dates, then last maturity/face value will be paid along with interest for the rest of the period. On 02.10.2020, the complainant was in dire need of money and he decided to encash the said bond. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party no.1 and requested the Manager to encash the same as per maturity value written on the bond. On this the Manager of the OP No.1 refused the complainant and suggested him to contact with the OPs No.3 & 4. The Manager of the OP No.1 informed the complainant that they have appointed the OPs No.3 & 4 as their registrar to deal with the holders of Deep Discount Bond. After getting the above said information from the OP No.1, the complainant made contact with the OPs No.3 & 4 on telephone then they demanded copy of Deep Discount Bond, UID and a cancelled cheque to start the process through email. On this the complainant sent all the documents on the email id of all the OPs on dated 05.10.2020. In reply of the email dated 05.10.2020, sent by the complainant, the OPs No.3 & 4 informed the complainant through email dated 11.08.2020, that the OPs No.1 & 2 invited a call to all the investors by exercising their option to redeem the bonds and further it is also communicated through letters and print media also in the year 2001 and at the time of call option the redemption amount was Rs.10,000/- against the investment of Rs.55,00/- for each bond. It is also informed by the OPs No.3 & 4 that now present redemption value including interest (i.e. saving bank interest only) will be around Rs.16,000/- plus per each bond. On 22.10.2020, the complaint replied through email that he was never informed by all of them regarding the call to all the investors to redeem the bond. It is pertinent to mention here that the full detail & address of the bond holder/complainant was submitted at the time of purchase of the said bond with the OPs No.1 & 2 and if the OPs has made any call then the complainant could be informed by the way of letters at the residential address of the complainant. On 28.10.2020, through email, the complainant refused to surrender the bond on face value of Rs.16,000/- only and he demanded full face value and same interest for the rest of 3 years as printed on the bond certificate. In the said email the complainant again requested to all the OPs to confirm the full maturity value of the bond. On 02.11.2020, the complainant received an email from the OPs No.3 & 4 and they again informed the complainant that the present redemption value including interest will be around Rs.16,000/- only. All the OPs have complete details and residential address of the complainant but they has never informed or called the complainant for redemption of the bond. Now only for their own benefit and to save their skin, all the opposite parties are taking in genuine shelter of alleged call of redemption and refusing the complainant to pay him full maturity/face value of the bond. All the OPs have provided deficient services to their customer negligently. There is no reason to decline the redemption request on full face value of the bond as written on the bond/certificate. The opposite parties have ignored the legal and genuine requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of all the OPs is amounting to unfair trade practice and the OPs have provided deficient and negligent services to the complainant for their own benefit and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay full face value of the bond as per dates and period mentioned on the IDBI Deep Discount Bond 1997, along with interest to the tune of 18% interest for the rest of the period till realization of the bond and further all the OPs may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing financial loss, harassment, mental tension, agony, inconvenience to the old age complainant and to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but notice sent to OPs No.3 & 4 not received back after elapsing of more than 30 days and ultimately, OPs No.3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on merits or as per law and is liable to be out rightly dismissed. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the contents of the Complaint are wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false, frivolous and are nothing but a flagrant abuse of the process of law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OPs and therefore no case is made out against the answering OPs. The present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs in favour of the answering OPs. It is further averred that from perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that the averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with mala fide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of services without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations made in the complaint. It is further averred that the OP is a Banking Company which accepts deposits from the customers and also offers credit facilities such as Housing Loan, Personal Loan, Credit card, Overdraft facility, Business Installment Loan etc., to the customers, and issue bonds and here represented by authorized officer/representative in present case. It is further averred that on the request of Complainant the 'Flexi 2 Deep Discount Bond, 1997' bearing no.FDD128996 417313 Certificate No.1173196 was issued by the answering OPs to the Complainant on 31.07.1997. It is further averred that the answering OPs in year 2001 had redeemed the bonds and publically invited a call to all the investors, to take the redemption payment of the said bonds, which was published in newspaper named 'Punjabi Tribune' in Punjabi language on dated 14.02.2001 and appeal was made to all its bond holders to kindly deposit the bonds before 18.02.2001 and 16.04.2001 and take redemption payment of their bond 'Flexi 2 Deep Discount Bonds, 1997' on 30.04.2021, after surrendering their bonds, from Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. OP No.4 which is an appointed Registrar by answering OPs to deal with Deep Discount Bonds. Thereafter the complainant got served Call Option Notice and Application for redemption of bonds by UCP on 02.03.2001 on the address given at time of purchase by complainant. Even after the intimation and receipt of the letter the complainant has failed to surrender the bond before 16.04.2001. Moreover, later on the complainant has also been served with reminder/Call Option Notice as well by UCP. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and there has never been any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. Even perusal of the complaint would reveal that no cause of action against the answering OPs has arisen. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complaint and against the answering OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased an IDBI Deep Discount Bond, 1997 bearing No.FDD128996 Certificate No.1173196 from OPs No.1 and 2 and paid Rs.5500/- and it is also admitted that the answering OPs appointed OPs No.3 & 4 as Registrar to deal with Deep Discount Bonds, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 very minutely.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant has purchased an IDBI Deep Discount Bond, 1997 bearing No.FDD128996 Certificate No.1173196 from OPs No.1 and 2 and paid Rs.5500/-. It was assured that the bond can be redeemed as per the schedule and table given by the IDBI, which reads as under:-

                        It was made clear that if the demand is made on 31 January, 2022, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- will be payable and if the demand of money is made between middle of the above mentioned maturity dates, then the last maturity face value shall be payable. The bond has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-1. The complainant has alleged that on 02.10.2020 when he was in need of money, he approached the OP and came to know that the OP had invited a call to all the investor by exercising their option to redeem the bonds and it was allegedly communicated through letters and print media, but the complainant did not receive any information regarding the call to redeem the bonds and the complainant was told that the present redemption value is Rs.16,000/- plus per each bond. The complainant has proved on record the correspondence in the shape of emails and the reply to the emails Ex.C-2 to Ex.C6.

7.                The OP has alleged that the news was published that IDBI Bonds Holder were invited to take redemption through publication in newspaper ‘Punjabi Tribune’ and separate letters were also sent to the investors. The OP has produced on record the newspaper cutting Ex.OP-2, Copy of UCP receipt Ex.OP-3 and 4, copy of computerized record of complaints Ex.OP-5 and the newspaper cuttings Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-15.

8.                The OP has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.52 of 2021, case titled as ‘Industrial Development Bank of India etc. Vs. Gurinder Pal Rawal ’ decided on 17.05.2022. Further, the OP has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.1 of 2021, case titled as ‘Industrial Bank of India etc. Vs. Bhupinder Kaur Grewal’ decided on 25.04.2023. Further, the OP has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.3930 of 2013, case titled as ‘Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr.’ decided on 25.11.2013. In the citations relied upon by the OP, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission and State Commission that once it is established that notices were duly served to the complainant through registered post and also by publication in the daily newspaper having circulation in the locality of the complainant, the effect of substituted service is complete under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC.

9.                The complainant has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as ‘IDBI Bank Limited Vs. Prit Pal Kaur & Anr’, decided on 02.03.2022. Further, the complainant has relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, in a case titled as ‘M/s IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Surjit Kaur’, decided on 01.11.2019. Further, the complainant has relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in a case titled as ‘IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. S. D. Jindal’, decided on 30.07.2013. In the citations relied upon by the complainant, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission that where the OP has failed to adduce evidence that the complainant had received the redemption letter, it cannot be said that the complainant has knowledge about the redemption letter.

                   In the present case, Ex.OP-2 is the newspaper ‘Punjabi Tribune’ and Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-15 are also publications in different newspapers. The OP has also produced on record the record showing the dispatch of applications for redemption-cum-reinvestment by UCP as Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4. Perusal of both these documents show that the name against the serial number 18344 has been mentioned as Rajinder Kumar Gupta and the address is Jalandhar-144001. The address of the complainant is nowhere mentioned in these documents, mere mentioning the word ‘Jalandhar’ does not prove that the complainant has received the letter. No acknowledgement has been proved to show that the letter was received by the complainant. The mentioning of Jalandhar only rather goes against the OP as it seems that this document has been filed just to complete the formality and it was not sent to the concerned person. The service is deemed to be effective only if the document has been posted to the complainant or any other concerned person by way of registered post mentioning the correct and detail address of that person, but in the present case, it has not been done. The OPs have failed to prove that the complainant was having knowledge about the letter of calling the OP for redemption. The OPs have failed to prove that the letter was received by the complainant. So, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay the deemed face value of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 31.05.2017 i.e. the date to redeem the bond, till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.11.2023         Member                          Member           President