ORDER

Challenge in this Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner, IDBI Bank Ltd. (Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum) u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) is to the Order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.130 of 2018. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner and affirmed the Order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) allowing the Complaint No. 622/2017 filed by the Respondents herein.

02.       In brief, the facts giving rise to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum are that the Complainant No.1, Mrs. Prit Pal Kaur purchased from the Opposite Party No.1, IDBI Bank Ltd. the Deep Discount Bond Series-I No.00043082 to 00043085 in the name of her minor son, Sukhjit Singh, i.e. Complainant No.2 and Deep Discount Bond Series Nos. 00043086 to 00043089 in her own name in the year 1992 at ₹2,700/- each (issue price). The Opposite Party IDBI promised to pay ₹1,00,000/- for each Bond at maturity at the end of 25 years i.e. 31.3.2017 as printed on the Bond Certificate itself. Upon maturity after 25 years, the Bonds in question were submitted to the Opposite Party IDBI for encashment, however, an email dated 20.04.2017 was received by the Complainants informing that IDBI had invited a Call Option to all Investors by exercising its option to redeem the Bonds and further it was also informed through letters and Print Media in the year 2002. At the time of Call Option, the redemption value of the Bond was ₹12,000/- each and at the time of submission of Bonds for encashment by the Complainants in the year 2017, the value of each Bond was ₹19,000/- including interest. The Complainants replied that no such Notice or Letter was received by them. The matter was referred to the Reserve Bank of India and it was then forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman made a Report qua the Call Option and the claim of the Complainants was not acceded to. Hence, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

03.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party IDBI has failed to establish as to whether the communication sent to the Complainants for redemption of Bond was actually received by them or the Newspaper in which Call Notice was published about redemption of the Bond in the year 2002, was having circulation in the locality where the Complainants used to reside in the year 2002. The District Forum has held as under:-

“          Per pleadings of the parties, purchase of eight Deep Discount Bonds (Annexure C-1) in the name of complainants is not disputed before us at all.  We shall refer to the recitals in Annexure C-1 i.e. Deep Discount Bond (Series I), issue price is Rs.2,700/- each and face value is mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/.  It is also scribed on the Bonds that it would mature on 31.3.2017. There is also reference that IDBI shall have the option to encash/redeem the bond only at the end of every five years from 31.3.1992 for the deemed face value.

Per pleadings of the OPs, they justified their action as option was exercised in the year 2002 which was available to both the parties.  But, the option, as a matter of common sense, could not have been exercised one sided as the holder of bond was entitled to know the result of the said option

Per pleadings and the affidavits of the parties, the moot point is with regard to any information given qua the exercise of said option to the complainant is material.  It is the case of the OPs, information was published in the newspaper, but, there is no pleading or evidence led in the form of issue of newspapers in which daily it was published and whethe