IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 16.06.2015 Date of Hearing: 22.02.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 306/2015 IN THE MATTER OF BANK OF BARODA.

BANK OF BARODA BUIDING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DE;HI-110001 (Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. PREM CHAND CHACHRA, 2. MS. ASHA CHACHRA, BOTH 1&2 AT J-14, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017.

3. HINDUSTAN DEVELOPERS CORPORATION LTD., MODY BUILDING, 27, SIR R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, CALCUTTA-700001.

…Respondent in Person CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Praful Rawat, counsel for the Appellant.

Respondent in person.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complaint in respect of Debenture Redemption amount of 14% of 100 no, Folio no. P118162, certificate no.233541 & 223509 of Rs.50/- each, totaling to Rs 13,500/- inclusive of interest of Rs.8,500/- on total value of certification of Rs.5,000/-.

It is alleged that Bank of Baroda, is mortgages and trustee of above debentures and has granted payment of same along with interest on behalf of company and OP1, which has committed to pay the same in 5 equal installments from 20.04.099 to 20.04.03. However, no payment was received despite reminders. It is alleged that bank had not released the amount by taking the plea that they have filed cases against the original company OP2, stating that matter is sub-judice.

Therefore, this complainant praying for direction to OP1 for honoring the commitment to make above payment to complainant along with cost & damages etc.

he OP1 filed evidence on affidavit along with judgments of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission of West Bengal in the Case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Vishwanath Poddar & others, dated 11.09.099 in FA/09/05. It's case is that in term of the trust deed dated 24.02.93 (Series IX), the debenture was secured by equitable mortgage of plants and immovable assets of OP2, and OP1 was empowered to enforce the security and institute proceedings for recovery of money & interest in respect of debentures, for benefit of all the debentures holders and not the individual debenture holder, and stated that it took all steps to protect the interest of debenture holders but OP2 proposed a scheme of arrangement with Hindustan Engine & Industries Ltd. Exh.OP1/2, and which is pending and OP2 filed a reference before BIFR, New Delhi, vide Exh.OP-1/10 dated 07.01.02. It has relied on the judgment of West Bengal Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, to say that consumer dispute does not lie between the debenture holder and trustees as relation between the complainant & OP was of debtor or creditor.

OP2 is exparte.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 07.04.2015, whereby it held as under:

“We have considered the rival case. The complainant has produced before us a judgment of full bench of Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in RP no.1299/203- 1301/2003, 1170/2005, 1076/2007, 3206/2007, 4059/2007, decided on 04.07.08, by Justice M.B Shah, the President.

It is an illuminating vast judgement on the issue in similar case of bank of India and the Hon'ble National Commission in this vast judgement held that (a) the debenture holders are 'Consumers' and (b) bank as a trustee has a duty to first verify, at every stage, the financial position of the Company which issued the debentures and secondly to ensure that these assets were at all relevant times adequate to meet the financial obligation of the Company to the debenture holders and Bank should have discharged its duty as a professional corporate trustee and if the loss was caused to the debenture holders due to its deficiency in not taking special care and in not exercising its special expertise as a corporate trustee, which is its profession, t