Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
IDBI Bank Limited – Petitioner
versus
Surjit Kaur – Respondent
Revision Petition No.179 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 01/11/2019 in Appeal No. 144/2019 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 17.8.2023
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajive R. Raj and Mr. Pratik Ranjan, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a notice is sent under certificate of posting, it is obligatory on part of sender to prove service of notice in view of other side denying receipt thereof.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Banking – IDBI Unsecured Bonds – Redemption of Bonds – Both parties, Petitioner/IDBI as well as Respondent/Allottee had the right to exercise option to redeem this bond before completion of its full period of 25 years – In absence of any specific mention about mode of communication in case of redemption before maturity, there is no reason for IDBI not to resort to same mode of communication i.e. registered post, for communication to allottees, its decision to exercise redeem option at end of 10 years – In instant case, IDBI did not communicate to allottees such decision which is mandatory in addition to newspaper publication by registered post – Petitioner shall pay full value of bond, along with 9% interest as well as Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed/disposed of with directions/reliefs.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 01.11.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.144 of 2019 in which order dated 28.05.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 471 of 2018 was challenged, inter alia praying for:—
(i) setting aside/modifying/reversing the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the State Commission;
(ii) passing directions in favour of the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- along with bank interest only for the Bond in question to the Respondent.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Bank) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 144 of 2019 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC No. 471 of 2018. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 12.02.2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.01.2023 and 19.01.2023 respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—
(i) the Petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and a banking company within the meaning of Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949). In January 1992, the Petitioner had issued a Public Issue of IDBI Unsecured Bonds for a minimum aggregate amount of Rs. 300 Crores and invited general public for investment in the said scheme. In response to the same the Respondent had purchased one Deep Discount Bond Series-I bearing Certificate No. 00817825 of Issue Price @ Rs.2,700/-. As per the terms and conditions, the Face Value of the aforesaid one Deep Discount Bond Series-I was Rs.1,00,000/- and for a tenure of 25 years upto 31.03.2017 and both the parties had the option to surrender/ redeem after every five years at the deemed face value as mentioned below:—
| (i) | At the end of 5 years i.e 31.03.1997 | Rs.5,700/- |
| (ii) | At the end of 10 years i.e. 31.03.2002 | Rs.12,000/- |
| (iii) | At the end of 15 years i.e. 31.03.2007 | Rs.25,000/- |
| (iv) | At the end of 20 years i.e. 31.03.20012 | Rs.50,000/- |
(ii) The Respondent recorded their correspondence and permanent address as “House No.554-2, Sector-41, Chandigarh”. Thereafter, the Respondent has neither made any correspondence nor any request for the change of recorded address to the Petitioner.
(iii) On 31.03.2002 the Petitioner exercised call option of the aforesaid Bonds as per terms and conditions mentioned in the Offer Document. As per Offer Document, the Bank announced its intention to exercise Call Option in one English & one Hindi daily newspaper without any commitment of location/ regional language, of the said publication. Accordingly, the call option notices were published in all leading National Daily Newspapers including, Financial Express, Indian Express Chandigarh, Jansatta Chandigarh, Hindustan Times, to name a few, dated 10.08.2001 wherein the subscribers were called to redeem the said Bonds. It was mentioned in the call option notice (sent to individual bondholder & also published in newspapers) that in order to claim redemption amount, bondholders have to surrender original bond certificate and interest will be paid on maturity/ redemption amount at the savings Bank rate after 31.03.2002 i.e. call option date. The Petitioner also issued individual letters to all the subscribers in September 2001 i.e. six months prior to
