ICICI BANK Vs. NARESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the single order of the State Commission; hence, decided by common order. Appeal No. 318 of 2009 ICICI Bank Vs. Naresh Kumar Jain has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party and Appeal No. 485 of 2009 - Naresh Kumar Jain Vs. ICICI Bank has been filed by the appellant/complainant gainst the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2007 by which, while allowing complaint partly, OP No. 1 was directed to pay interest on Rs. 20,80,000/- @ 12% p.a. for 6 months against which, both the parties have filed these appeals.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainants purchased Government of India 6.5% Saving Bonds (Non-taxable) cumulative from OP No. 1 worth Rs.20,80,000/- on 3.6.2004. Complainant approached OP No. 1 on 6.6.2008 for pre-mature encashment of bonds after 3 years lock in period, but OP refused to redeem them on the ground that the bonds are redeemable only after a minimum lock in period of 31/2 years. It was further alleged that OP was unjustified in deducting Rs.40,919/- on account of pre-mature redemption of bonds. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint against the OP as OP No. 2 issued bonds on behalf of OP No. 3. OPs resisted complaint and OP No. 1 submitted that complainant did not fall within purview of consumer as OP No. 1 had not provided any service, but was only a distributor/collecting agent for OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 appointed M/s. 3i-Infotech Ltd. as their 'service provider' for the aforesaid bonds. It was further submitted that on receiving application from the complainant and on further verification by M/s. 3-iInfotech Ltd. issued letter dated 7.7.2007 and returned the bonds to present after completion of 31/2 years and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 submitted that complainant has not availed any service for consideration and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly as mentioned above against which, these appeals have been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the ICICI Bank, R.B.I. and complainant himself in person who is also an Advocate and perused the record.