Appeal filed on: 07.12.2O23 Appeal disposed on: 18.03.2026 THE I(ARNATAXA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRTSSAL COMMISSION, CIRCT'IT BENCH.2 BELAGAVI DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH,2026 sc I cBz I 29 I A I 2368 I 2023 to 237 t I 2023 PRESENT CORAM: Hoa'ble SRI RAVI SHANKAR, WDICIAL MEMBER Hon'ble SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEVIADI, L/tDy MEMBER

1. IDBI Bank Limited, Head Office, IDBI Tower, Cuff Parade Mumbai-400005.

2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Head Office, IDBI tower, Cuff Parade Mumbai-4000o5.

3. The Director, ...Appellant/s Head Office, IDBI tower, Cuff Parade Mumbai-400005.

(Thc appellant ln all thcse appeals tle ar\e one and sannc)

(By Srt T.P Muthanna, Adtt@dte)

Yls

1. Apoeal No.2368/2O23 Sri Dilip, S/o Krishnaji Tilve, Aged about 72 years, Resident of 1086/A Bichu Galli, Shahpur, Belagavi-584004. 2. ApoealNo.2369l2O23 Sri Dilip, .,.Respondent/s S/o Krishnaji Titve, Aged about 72 years, Resident of 1086/4 Bichu Galli, Shahpur, Belagavi-584004.

3. Appeal No.237Ol2o23 Shri Koustubh, S/o Dilip Tilve, Aged about 41 years, Resident of 1086/A Bichu Galli, Shahpur, Belagavi-584004.

4. AopealNo.237ll2O23 ...Respondent/s Sri Gourav, S/o Dilip Tilve, Aged about 40 years, Resident of 1086/A Bichu Galli, Shahpur, Belagavi-584004.

fAy ^{Srf.G.R. Bhanre Adrncate)}

COMMON ORDER BY HON'BLE SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI. LADY MEMBER The above appeals are ^preferred by Opposite Parties ⁱⁿ CC Nos.a712022, 8812022, 8912022 and 90l2O22 respectively on the Iile of District Consumer ^Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, aggrieved by ^{the order} dated 11.10.2023 and ^prays to set aside ^{the order of the} District Commission in the interest ofjustice ^{and equity.}

2. The brief facts of the complaints is ^{that, the} complainants have invested their ^money under ^{D.D.B Flexi} Bond in Opposite Party No.l banking company. ^{The details} are as below:-

3. After maturity of these certificates the, legal notice on 13.12.2021 calling upon the Opposite Parties

Parties have not repaid the maturity amounts of ^these bonds inspite of several requests, emails and letters. ^The complainants have shocked and surprised by the reply ^to the requests stating that, already Opposite Party ^No.l exercised call option to redeem these bonds and ^the Opposite Party No.l had already informed to ^the complainants through letter and print media in the ^year 2OO2 about redeeming tl:e bonds and the ^present redemption va-lue including the interest would be Rs. 18,000/- each which is not within the knowledge of the complainants. Hence, the complainants had issued cause

J to repay the matured face value of ttre bonds. But tJle Opposite Parties instead of comply the demand made in the Iegal notice sent a vague and false reply and denied to make the payment of matured face value of the bonds till today hence, the complaints.

4. After service of notice of t]le District Commission, Opposite Parties appeared through the counsel but failed to filed written version. Hence, the Opposite Parties filed [A to filed the version. However, on 03. lO.2O22 the District Commission by order dated 06.12.2022 rejected the IA filed by the Opposite Parties hence, Opposite parties have preferred Revision Petition No.O7/2023 to lO

12023 challenging the order passed by the District Commission before this Commission. This Commission also dismissed the Revision Petitions filed by the Opposite parties on 26.06.2023. However, this Commission has permitted the Opposite Parties to submit their documents and participate in complaint proceedings and contest these complaints only on legal aspects available to them if any like limitation, jurisdiction etc. Hence, after trial Distric