IMPORTANT POINT
Bond-Holder must be duly intimated about redemption of Bonds.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 07-01-2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 291/2009 – Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) & Ors. Vs. Dr. Saraswati Gupta, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased two Deep Discount Bonds bearing certificate Nos.00394101 & 00394102 of Rs.2,500 each in the year 1993 from O.P./Petitioner. The face value of those bonds as mentioned in the bond certificate was Rs.1.00 lac each as on 1.1.2018. The complainant/respondent had option to get encashed the said bonds at the end of 5th, 9th, 12th, 15th or 20th year as per their face values at the end of every such year. It was alleged that on 27.6.2008 when complainant/respondent visited OPs, she was informed that the scheme in question had been cancelled, so she should withdraw her amount. Accordingly the complainant/respondent applied for the encashment of her bonds. Thereafter, she received two cheques of Rs. 17,752/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.7752) issued by OPs/petitioners and the interest paid on the principal amount of said bonds was only for the period from 1993 till 2002 whereas it should have been paid till June, 2008, the date on which it was withdrawn as the amount was being utilized by the OPs/petitioners upto that period. The OPs/petitioners had neither informed the complainant/respondent that the scheme had been cancelled and she should withdraw her amount, nor on the cancellation of scheme the OPs/petitioners sent the deposited amount with interest at the address of complainant/respondent. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party/petitioner, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party exercised options in the 9th year and published public notice in all leading national and regional dailies intimating to the Unit Holders about call options and also sent individual letters under Certificate of Postings (UPC) on 24.07.2001 to all the investors requesting them to surrender duly discharged Bond Certificates for redemption. It was further submitted that subsequent letters dated 09-05-2005 and 03-07-2006 were also sent to remaining Bond Holders who did not surrender their bond certificates. As complainant/Respondent did not surrender bond certificates well in time, she was not entitled to interest after the year 2002 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay interest @ 8% p.a. Rs.19,200/- from 01-02-2002 till 27-06-2008 and further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,500/-. Appeal filed by the opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of publishing notice in all the papers and intimation to the complainant Under Certificate of Posting for surrendering of bonds, learned District Forum committed error in allowing interest and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

4. The core question to be decided in this revision petition is whether intimation was given to the complainant by opposite party regarding exercise of option for redemption of bonds.

5. Petitioner has not placed UPC receipt by which intimation was sent to respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attent