Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 411
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER
IDBI BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PRITI BALAJI BHURE & ANR. – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1114 of 2020 | Appeal No. 377/2018 | C.C. No. 628/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shashank Sharma
For the Respondents: Not specified
Banks must provide individual notice to bond holders for redemption; failure to do so negates their liability.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision against the order - Bank failed to provide individual notice to bond holders regarding redemption of bonds, which is necessary for exercising the option to redeem - Concurrent findings of lower forums upheld. (Paras 1, 12, 13)
(B) Notice - Nature and requirement of notice to bond holders - Mere publication in newspapers does not suffice; individual notice is mandatory. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The complainant’s father deposited a sum for bonds, which upon maturity was not paid. The bank contended it informed bond holders about redemption, but failed to prove notice to complainant.
Findings of Court:
The bank didn't furnish adequate proof of notice; thus liable to pay the promised maturity amount and compensation for distress.
Issues: The key question was whether the bank provided proper notice to the bond holder regarding bond redemption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that banks must provide individual notice for bond redemption, emphasizing the bank's failure in its duty to inform.
Result: Revision dismissed, lower court's order upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to fulfill bond maturity obligations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insufficient notification of bond redemption. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments reiterate prior claims without new evidence. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's emphasis on the necessity of personal notification to bondholders. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. jurisdictional limitations on the commission in reviewing findings. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. dismissal of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 12) |
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2020 in appeal no. 377/2018 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 03.07.2018 of the District Forum in C.C. No. 628/2017 was dismissed. The petitioner was the opposite party and the respondent was the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s father had deposited a sum of Rs.5,500/- with United Western Bank prior to her marriage and bonds were issued in her name. The bonds were valid for 20 years and the petitioner had promised and assured to pay Rs.1 lakh on maturity. When the petitioner approached the bank on 31st May, 2017, she was assured that the amount would be made available at the earliest. She wrote a letter to the bank on 12.06.2018. She was asked to give original bond along with other relevant documents which were duly submitted by her. She was, however, not paid the amount of Rs.1 lakh on maturity, as promised. She therefore approached the District Forum. The District Forum issued the notice to the petitioner and petitioner had filed its written statement. The issuance of the bond on 31.01.1997 was admitted by the bank. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the bank had retained the authority to redeem the bonds and it had cancelled the bonds and issued a notice to the bond holder on 28.02.2001 by registered post through Karvy Computers Shares Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, asking the bond holder to return the original bond certificates by 16th April, 2001. Also a public notice in Marathi newspaper ‘Lokmat’ was issued on 13th February, 2001. Publication was also done in English newspaper ‘Assam Tribune’ and Hindi newspaper ‘Dainak Tribune’. Vide these published notices the bond holders were duly informed that from 30th April, 2001, the interest would not be paid as per the face value of Rs.1 lakh. The bond holder vide this publication was also asked to return the bond by 16th April, 2001. On 21st May, 2001, notice was again issued through Karvy Computers Shares Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad by registered post making the same request. When the representatives of the complainant approached the bank, the amount of Rs.15,773/- with interest @ 3.5% from 30.04.2001 as specified in the notice dated 30th April, 2001 was deposited in the account of the complainant. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidences on record, the District Forum issued the following directions:-
ORDER
The present complaint is allowed.
The Respondent should pay to the complainant Rs.84,227/- with 8% interest from 26/01/2017 within 45 days from the order and also pay Rs.5,000/- for mental distress & Rs.2,000/-for complaint expenses.
Copies of the order should be provided free of charge to both parties.
3. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum has held as under:
As to Issue No. 1
9. The complaint of complainant is that, as per terms Rs. 1 lack after 20 years 4 months is not given by the Respondent. The Respondent has argued that, letter issued to complainant in year 2001 and also publish paper proclamation in newspaper and intimated about redemption of their bond. The Respondent has filed document Dainik Asam Tribune Dt. 13/02/2001, Hindi Dainik Tribune dt. 14/02/2001 and Dainik Lokmat Dt.13/02/2001 in this newspaper and intimated regarding right of choose the options. Dainik Asam Tribune was not published in the Maharashtra therefore, it cannot be said that, the complainant received the notice. A copy of
