1.      The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2020 in appeal no. 377/2018 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 03.07.2018 of the District Forum in C.C. No. 628/2017 was dismissed.  The petitioner was the opposite party and the respondent was the complaint.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s father had deposited a sum of Rs.5,500/- with United Western Bank prior to her marriage and bonds were issued in her name.  The bonds were valid for 20 years and the petitioner had promised and assured to pay Rs.1 lakh on maturity.  When the petitioner approached the bank on 31^st May, 2017, she was assured that the amount would be made available at the earliest.  She wrote a letter to the bank on 12.06.2018.  She was asked to give original bond along with other relevant documents which were duly submitted by her.  She was, however, not paid the amount of Rs.1 lakh on maturity, as promised.  She therefore approached the District Forum.  The District Forum issued the notice to the petitioner and petitioner had filed its written statement.  The issuance of the bond on 31.01.1997 was admitted by the bank.  The contention raised by the petitioner was that the bank had retained the authority to redeem the bonds and it had cancelled the bonds and issued a notice to the bond holder on 28.02.2001 by registered post through Karvy Computers Shares Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, asking the bond holder to return the original bond certificates by 16^th April, 2001.  Also a public notice in Marathi newspaper ‘Lokmat’ was issued on 13^th February, 2001.  Publication was also done in English newspaper ‘Assam Tribune’ and Hindi newspaper ‘Dainak Tribune’.  Vide these published notices the bond holders were duly informed that from 30^th April, 2001, the interest would not be paid as per the face value of Rs.1 lakh.  The bond holder vide this publication was also asked to return the bond by 16^th April, 2001.  On 21^st May, 2001, notice was again issued through Karvy Computers Shares Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad by registered post making the same request.  When the representatives of the complainant approached the bank, the amount of Rs.15,773/- with interest @ 3.5% from 30.04.2001 as specified in the notice dated 30^th April, 2001 was deposited in the account of the complainant.  Parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidences on record, the District Forum issued the following directions:-

ORDER

1. The present complaint is allowed.

2. The Respondent should pay to the complainant Rs.84,227/- with 8% interest from 26/01/2017 within 45 days from the order and also pay Rs.5,000/- for mental distress & Rs.2,000/-for complaint expenses.

3. Copies of the order should be provided free of charge to both parties.

3.      While allowing the complaint, the District Forum has held as under:

As to Issue No. 1

9.            The complaint of complainant is that, as per terms Rs. 1 lack after 20 years 4 months is not given by the Respondent.  The Respondent has argued that, letter issued to complainant in year 2001 and also publish paper proclamation in newspaper and intimated about redemption of their bond.  The Respondent has filed document Dainik Asam Tribune Dt. 13/02/2001, Hindi Dainik Tribune dt. 14/02/2001 and Dainik Lokmat Dt.13/02/2001 in this newspaper and intimated regarding right of choose the options.  Dainik Asam Tribune was not published in the Maharashtra therefore, it cannot be said that, the complainant received the notice.  A copy of paper proclamation Dainik Lokmat newspaper filed by Respondent but Dainik Lokmat newspaper version is published place to place, so it is not clear exactly which version the paper proclamation was published.  Therefore, it cannot assume that, said notice was also received to the complainant.  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that, “Bond Holder must be duly intimated about redemption of bond” in the matter of Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs. Saraswati Gupta 2015 (1) CPR 520 (NC), observed, “Bank cannot escape its liability by merely publishing something in a newspaper” in the case of IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Smt. T.K. Nagarathna 2008 (4) CPR 323 (NC) and also observed that, “In the absence of production of proof regarding the sending of individual option notice to complaint, it could be safely held that he was not sent the same.  Mere notice for giving option in English Dailies did not amount to due notice of option to the complainant” in the matter of Vardan Singh Rana Vs. Unit Trust of India 2012 (1) CPR 14.  In the present case, it cannot be said that the Respondent has given proper notice / information regarding redemption of bond paper proclamation in Lokmat and Asam Tribune to the complainant.  The Respondent has not filed any evidence regarding that, notice received himself by the complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be said that, paper proclamation published in newspaper in the year 2001 and received by the complainant.  The complainant went to Respondent Bank after laps of policy period i.e. after 20 years 4 months and demanded Rs.1 lac, this fact is proved by the complainant but Respondent has not fulfil the demand of complainant and created an error in the service.  Hence, answer to issue no. 1 is in affirmative.

4.      The State Commission in appeal after re-assessing and re-appreciating the evidences on record also reached to the conclusion that no proper notice of exercise of the option or recall has been given by the bank to the bond holder.  It is held as under:

12.         The opponent no. 1 IDBI Bank is claiming that the option was available to the both : the Parties, i.e. for opponent no. 1 to repurchase and for holder to redeem the bond.  Accordingly, before 30^th April, 2001, the opponent no. 1 bank through its consultant opponent no. 2 issued public notice through Daily Newspaper in Marathi Daily Newspaper Lokmat dt. 13.2.2001, in Asam Tribune Daily English Newspaper dt. 13.2.2001 and Dainik Tribune in Hindi dt. 14.2.2001, to select the option to holder of deep discount bank, and they were called upon to submit the application on or before 19.2.2000 and to submit the bond before 30.4.2001 to concerned official of IDBI Bank.  It is also defence of opponent that the opponents have also issued individual notice to complainant on recent address made available.

13.         The copies of the public notice published in the Newspaper at page no. 52 to 55 of appeal memo.  These papers are not produced completely so as to disclose the area in which they are published.  There is list of alleged holder of bond at page no. 64, 65, 66 to whom according to opponent no. 1, the individual notice has been issued.  However, no postal receipt or acknowledgment is produced to prove that the complainant or her father the original applicant is served with the notice.  Therefore, it is rightly argued by learned Advocate for the complainant that there is no evidence as to service of notice.

14.         In the circumstances we are relying upon the citations stated Supra, relied upon by complainant that individual notice to the party is necessary, before making any changes in the terms and conditions of the bond.

5.      In the present revision petition the petitioner bank has again raised the same contentions.  It is submitted that the petitioner had the option to redeem the bonds and they had duly informed the complainant about their intention to redeem the bonds by way of publication and individual notices.

6.      From the concurrent findings of the fora below it is apparent that the bank was required to issue individual notices to the bond holders.  The bank has failed to duly prove on record that any such individual notice was duly served on the bond holder.  From the terms and conditions of the bonds, it is apparent that the bank is given only an authority to exercise the option to redeem the bond and for that purpose they are required to give notice to the bond holders.  They have no authority to redeem the bond on their own.  Information or intimation to the bond holder is sine qua non for the bank for exercising their option.  The bank has failed to produce a single iota of evidence to prove that the notices were served to the bond holders.  Although it is contended by the bank that notice was sent through registered post, neither the receipt nor the AD card has been placed on record.  There is absolutely no evidence on record to prove even the issuance of any such notice to the bond holder.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the findings in two cases of this Commission on the similar facts wherein this Commission has recognized that the act of the bank to redeem the bonds prior to the date of its maturity was legal act, which are as under:

1. R.P. No. 3107 of 2012 in the case of Mahendrapal Kashiram Sharma Vs. Manager, IDBI Bank & Ors. decided on 28.11.2016; and

2. R.P. No. 3930 of 2013 in the case of Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. decided on 25.11.2013

    

7.      We have gone through those judgments.  The facts of these cases are not identical to the facts of this case.  It is a settled proposition of law that the findings in a case are binding as and when it is given on the same set of facts.  In the cases (supra) from the facts it is clear that in those cases the notices were duly received by the bond holder. However, in the present case petitioner has failed to prove that notice was served on the bond holder. 

8.      From the above discussion it is apparent that the facts of this case are distinguishable from the findings of this Commission in the case of Mahendrapal Kashiram Sharma Vs. Manager, IDBI Bank & Ors. &  Chatur Behari Sharma Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. (supra). 

9.      As regards, the publication there are concurrent findings of the fora below that the publication was not proper and sufficient.  Revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited.  This Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its findings on facts.  An order can be set aside in revisional jurisdiction when there is perversity in the said order. 

10.                  It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”.

11.                  Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

  “17.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

12.        In T. Ramalingeswara Rao  (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“12.                  When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.

13.        There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order.  The present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.