BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 10/2007
Date of presentation: 11.01.2007
Date of decision: 31.07.2009
Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh,
Resident of Set No.7, Ram Niwas, Bemloi, Shimla-1.
… Complainant.
Versus
1. Director, Industrial Development Bank of India
Head Office IDBI Towar, Cuffe Parade, Bombay-400005.
2. Invester Service of India, Ltd. 11 Floor, IDBI Building,
A-Wing, Sector-Eleven, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai
400614.
3. Manager, IDBI, The Mall, Shimla-171001.
…Opposite Parties
For the complainant: Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: None.
O R D E R:
Per, Dr. Karuna Machhan, Member:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provisions of Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, the OPs, floated Deep Discount Bond 96 issue, Price of which was Rs.5300/-, and Face Value was Rs.2,00,000/- and the holder of this bond had the option to redeem the bond, as detailed in paragraph 2 of the complaint. It is averred that the complainant in the month of July, 2000 submitted a PUT option to get the aforesaid bond redeemed on, December 1, 2006 at Rs.25,000/-. And, when, he approached the OPs on, December 1, 2006, he was informed that he is only entitled to Rs.10,000/- on account of the fact that the OPs had exercised its call option on August 1, 2000, which, is, averred to have been done without intimating him in written. He, further proceeded to aver, that the OPs, have, also failed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- on August 1, 2000, when call option was exercised by them. Hence, it is averred, that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs filed written version, to the complaint, wherein it, is, admitted that the complainant was the holder of one Deep Discount Bonds under IDBI Flexi bonds 96, bearing folio No. FDDB 1104941, and as per the regulations, he was supposed to surrender the bond for redemption, on redemption date, which, he failed to comply with and as such, the redemption amount, could not be released to him. It is further contended that, it, was clearly inscribed on the bond certificates that, its holder shall, have, the option to redeem the bond on any of the dates, as detailed in paragraph 2 of the reply. It is admitted that they are ready to discharge the liability of Rs.10,000/- unless the complainant surrenders the duly discharged original bond certificates. Hence, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part.
3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
5. The parties do not wrangle over the fact that the complainant was holder of one Deep Discount Bonds under IDBI Flexi bonds 96, bearing No.1104941. The parties also do not dispute the fact that the holders of the aforesaid bond, shall have the option to redeem the bond, on any of the dates at the deemed face value, as detailed in paragraph 2 of the complaint, as also, in paragraph 2 of the reply of the OPs, to the complaint, hence, the only dispute, over which the parties are engaged before this Forum, is, qua, whether the OPs were guilty of exercising its call option on August 1, 2000, without informing the holders of bond in writing, as also, non-refund of the face value of the bonds, when, they were approached by the complainant, for the same. In our view, the answer is in negative, for the reasons mentioned herein below.
6. A perusal of Annexure-1, which is the copy of the bond regulations, divulges the fact that the holder of bond shall have the option to redeem the bond before the maturity period on the dates as detailed in it, and, to get the amount indicated there against. The complainant also does not deny the said fact rather, he himself has asserted the same fact in the complaint that the holder of the bond have the option to redeem the bond. Annexure-II, is copy of exercise of call option and its contents reveals that bondholders were requested to surrender duly discharged bonds certificates, by July 15, 2000, to enable the bondholders to receive redemption proceeds on or before 01.08.2000, wherein, it was also intimated that no interest will be payable on the bonds after August 1, 2000.
7. Though, it is asserted on behalf of the complainant that the OPs had exercised its call option without informing him, yet, we find no substantiation to the said fact on record on behalf of the complainant, whereas, the OPs have placed on record photocopy of Post & Telegraph Department for redemption notices of IDBI bondholders which bears Annexure-III, vide which the bond holders were given due intimation, hence, for lack of cogent evidence on behalf of the complainant, it cannot be concluded that the OPs have not given him due intimation regarding call option. Also, there is no substantiation of the fact that the OPs did not refund the face value of the bond to him, when they were approached by him, as, it, is, categorically, contended by the OPs that they are ready to discharge the liability of Rs.10,000/-, subject to complainant surrendering the original bond certificates. Hence, the conclusion is, that, the complainant instead of surrendering the bond certificates before the OPs, thought it proper to ventilate his grievance before this Forum, without any cause of action, as, the OPs were ready and willing to refund the sale proceeds of the bonds to him, subject to surrendering original bond certificates, by him, to the OPs, hence, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed to be a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8. Resultantly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to direct the complainant to surrender the original bond certificates to the OPs, within a period of four weeks, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, and, thereafter, the OPs shall, proceed to refund the face value of the bond proceeds to him, as per Annexure-IV, exercise of Call Option by IDBI-IDBI Flexi bonds 1996, to the complainant, within a period of three weeks, on receipt of the original bond certificates from the complainant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The complaint is disposed of accordingly in the above terms. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 31st day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.
Tags: Bank of India