Appeal filed on: 09.11.2022 Appeal disposed on: 14.01.2026 THE I(ARITIATAI{A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BEIYGALURU (ADD. BEr{CHl DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY,2026 PR"ESENT CORAM: Hon'ble SRI RAVI SIIANKAR, JIIDICIAL MtuBER.

Hon'ble SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER The Branch Manager, IDBI Bank LTD Mission Road Branch ,.Appellant/s Bangalore- 560O27.

(Bg Srt.T.P Mutho,nna, Adaocak)

V/s MS S Shruthi No.205/A, 18fr Mail Road

6ft Block, Koramangala ...Respondent/s Bangalore-56O O95.

(Bg Srl, M. S. Rql ag opdl" Adoocate)

ORDER BY HON'BLE SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, LADY MEMBER The Appellant/ Complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.09.2022 Passed in CC. No. 16612022 On 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shanthinagar, Bengalore.

1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;

2. Mr. M.S Rajgopal the Grandfather of the Complainant purchased one Bond for Rs.10,O0O l- in the name of the Complainant on 21 .01.2002 with an assurance that after maturity, alter 17 years sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be payable to the holder of the Bond. When 17 years 6 months was over by September 2019, the Complainant through his GPA holder Mr. M.S Rajgopal presented the Bond to the OP/IDBI Bank at Mission Road, Bangalore. They informed the Complainant to contact Karqz consultant along with document and also advised to contact their Head Office at Hyderabad. When the complainant contacted, it was informed that a sum of Rs.23,47O l- as already been paid on 16.1 1.2005 through warrant No.4245847 and account has been already closed. Since the Complainant has not received the said warrant, the complainant requested repeatedly to the OP. Inspite of repeated requests and demands OP has not paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as agreed to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.

After service of the notice of the District Commission OP did not appear hence, placed exparte. After trail District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with 12% per annum from the date of maturity ti the payment of the entire amount along with Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and Rs. 10,0O0/- towards litigation cost.

4. Heard both the parties.

12022

5.

Perused the appeal memodandum order passed by the District Commission and documents on record we noticed that, it is not in dispute that Sri. M.S. Rajgopal, the Grandfather of the Complainant had purchased a Bond for Rs.10,OOO/- in the name of his Grand Daughter Shruthi, from the Respondent on 2l.Ol.2OO2. It is also not in dispute that the maturity period of the bond was 17 years for the face value of Rs.1,0O,OO0/-. It is also not in dispute that Bond holder had option to redeem the Bond on any of the duration at that deemed face value as following;-

6. The cruks of the case is that, Appellant has redeemed the Bond on 16.11.2005 by paying an amount of Rs.23,47O/- under warrant No.4245847 which the Respondent has disputed. Perused the appeal memo, appellant placed exparte before the District Commission hence, not contested the matter and the allegation of the Respondent remained unchallenged. When the order was passed against the appellant, the appellant preferred this appeal and produced some documents before this a Commission and contended that even though personal notice was issued to the Respondent and paper publications were made in the leading newspaper on severa-l times, Respondent failed to contact the Bank and submits the Bond. However, Appellant deposited Rs.23,47O1- (After deducting TDS from Rs.25,000/-) the face value of the Bond on the Call Option day under warant No.4245847 dated 16.11.2005 in the account of the Respondent and said amount was encashed by the Respondent without protest in accordance with terms ald conditions. Appellant had also produced some citations to show ttrat the redemption option of Bond has exercised by Bank was legal and Bank took enough to measures informed the Bond holders by issu