P. Siva Reddy Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India and Others - Court Judgment

Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member)

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.820/2007 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a retired engineer and he being attracted by the offer of opp.parties promising to pay maturity value for Bonds at high rate of interest he applied for allotment of bonds and the opposite party allotted the following bonds:

a)IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 Nos. having distinctive no.0003424571 and 3424572,

b) IDBI Flexi Bonds (1) Nos.2 having distinctive nos .0001031347-348 value for Rs.5,000/- each.

c). IDBI Flexi Bonds (11) Nos. having distinctive nos.0002828974-976 face value of Rs.5000/- each .

The complainant applied for four IDBI Flexi bonds (17) by paying the required amounts. Opp.parties instead of issuing certificate for four bonds issued three bonds having face value of Rs.5000/- each. The complainant addressed several letters to the opp.party for furnishing the fourth bond but there was response. Opposite party paid maturity amount for three bonds and did pay for the fourth bond. The complainant addressed several letters including legal notice. Opp.parties also paid the maturity amount for IDBI Flexi bonds (10) nos. having distinctive nos.0001031347-348 without asking the complainant to submit the original bonds or receipt etc. The complainant submits that the IDBI Infrastructure bond (99-A) 2 nos having distinctive nos.0003424571 and 3424572 matured on 27.3.2006 but the opp.parties did not pay the maturity amount. The complainant addressed letter requesting to pay the maturity amount for the said bonds. The opp.parties addressed a letter to the complainant asking to submit the original bonds The complainant is ready to hand over the original bonds but the opposite parties through their letter dt.24.1.2007 stated that they are not liable to pay any interest on the bonds from 27.3.2002 as per IDBI rules. The complainant submits that the action of opposite parties for non payment of the maturity amount on the IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A)2 Nos. having distinctive no.0003424571 and 3424572 is not only unfair and is also unlawful. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay a). Rs.24,000/-( Rs.12,000/- each as on 27.3.2006 as per the bond under IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 nos. having distinctive nos.0003424571 and 3424572) with interest at 24% p.a. from 27.3.2006 till realization, to pay an amount of Rs.6,390/-( face value is Rs.5,000/- interest on upto 3.9.2006 as per the warrant issued for other bonds under IDBI Flexi Bonds (17) Nos.1 face value Rs.5000/- which was applied by the complainant and not issued by the opp.parties) with interest at 24% p.a. from 3.9.2006 till realization , to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Opposite party no.1 filed their version contending that they made a public issue of IDBI Flexibonds-6 (1999A) and the complainant applied for two bonds and was allotted two bonds of IDBI Flexibonds-6 bearing Folio No.AIFB-0102775 under IDBI infrastructure (Tax Saving) bonds (99-A) having face value of Rs.5,000/- each, opted for Option B under Section 88 matured in three years i.e. on 27.3.2002 for the redemption proceeds of Rs.7150/- per bond only. The complainant was allotted two bonds of IDBI Flexibonds-6 bearing Folio No.101FB-1407831 under IDBI Infrastructure (Tax Saving) Bonds (2001-B) having face value of Rs.5000/- each opted for Option ‘B under cumulative option, maturing after three years four months i.e. on 30.7.2004 for the redemption proceeds of Rs.13,644/- for two bonds. The complainant applied for three bonds and was allotted three bonds of IDBI Flexi Bonds-11 bearing Folio no.111FBD-2052786 under IDBI Infrastructure (Tax Saving) Bonds (2002-A) having face value of Rs.5000/- each opted for option D under cumulative option maturing after three years six months i.e. on 5.8.2005 for the redemption proceeds of Rs.6,785/- per bond only. A letter dt.21.1.2002 along with redemption application form was sent to the complainant for sending it to the Registrar of the issue which is to be sent one month before the date of redemption. It was informed to the complainant to send it one month before the date of redemption. The complainant is entitled for Rs.14,300/- towards the monthly value of the two bonds and the same will be paid. The complainant made the claim for the amount which he is not entitled for. The complainant cannot claim any amount over and above the redemption amount. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A22 and B1 to B7 disposed the case directing the opp.party no.1 to pay the maturity amount of bond no.99-A(Regd.Folio AIF 8102775) due and payable by the date of maturity date noted in the bond and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. if delayed beyond 30 days and the complainant shall return Rs.18,745/- to opp.party no.1 with interest @ 12% from 4.9.06 upto the date of payment.

Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal. Appellant filed Exs.A23 and A24 as additional evidence. Respondent no.1 filed Exs.B8 to B11 as additional evidence.

It is the complainant s case that he applied for four IDBI infrastructure bonds but the opp.parties issued certificates for only 3 bonds having face value of Rs.5000/- each. Inspite of several reminders for IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) having distinctive numbers 000342 4571 and 342 4572 matured on March,27,2006 did not pay the maturity amount. The opp.parties addressed a letter to the complainant to submit the original bonds and also stated vide their letter dt.24.1.2007 (Ex.A4) that they are not liable to pay any interest on the bonds from 27.3.2002 as per IDBI rules. It is the complainants case that he is entitled to an amount of Rs.6390/- under IDBI Flexi Bonds 17 and also an amount of Rs.24,000/- for IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 nos. together with interest from 27.3.06 till realization. The learned counsel for the respondents/opp.parties contended that the opp.parties never allotted Flexi Bond no.17 to the complainant and this bond pertains to another person by name P.Siva Reddy of Kadapa which was wrongly adjusted by opp.party no.3 and maturity amount of Rs.18,745/- covered by Folio no.1801475 was wrongly sent to the complainant and Ex.B4 is the copy of the application of the said P.Siva Reddy of Kadapa whose amount was wrongly encashed by this complainant . He relied on Ex.B3 to B5 in support of his case and also filed additional evidence Exs.B8 to B11. Ex.B9 is an application wherein the name T.B.Ravi appears as the name of the applicant and an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been paid. Ex.B10 shows that cash receipt 101 dt.5.2.03 (Ex.B8) is received for application no.B1982651 and not for 1982667 and an application no.B1982651 is in the name of T.B.Ravi. The respondent/opp.party also filed affidavit of the AGM, IDBI Bank stating that the payments of the maturity amounts on two IDBI Infrastructure Savings Bond (99-A) was paid to the complainant but without interest. The said amount was paid on 21.7.2008 for Rs.13,857/- after deducting TDS. The learned counsel for the respondent/opp.party contended that the complainant cannot seek for issuance of fourth bond since he has applied for only 3 bonds and that there is no documentary evidence that he has subscribed for fourth bond and sought for refund of Rs.18,745/- which was infact paid by mistake to the complainant herein. We observe from the record that the documentary evidence Exs.B1 to B4 show that the complainant did not apply for Flexi Bond -17 which is also substantiated by Exs.B8 to B11. Ex.B4 clearlyevidences that one Pochanna Siva Reddy of Kadapa had applied for the bonds and an amount of Rs.18,745/- was sent to the complainant (Ex.B2). The contention of the appellant/complainant that amount has to be paid to him for the fourth bond is not supported by any documentary evidence. The burden is on the complainant to prove his case and he did not choose to file the acknowledgement. The appellant/complainant filed Exs.A23 and A24 as an additional evidence. But the learned counsel for the respondent/opp.party filed EXs.B8 to B11 which states that this cash receipt no.101 is pertain to Exs.A24 as per application 1982651 and not for 1982667. We also observe from the record that in Ex.A24 there appears to be a correction of the last two digits. In the light of Exs.B8 to B11 it is clear that the complainant herein did not make the payments with respect to 101 voucher number (Ex.A24). Taking into consideration that the complainant failed to establish by way of filing correct acknowledgement slip or by filing the particulars of payment of money or the statement of the bank crediting the amount to IDBI account, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the respondents/opp.parties and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Dist. Forum. Hence this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.