By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get back Rs.14,250/- entrusted to opposite parties company with cost and compensation.

2. Brief of the complaint:- Opposite party No.2 and 3 are the agent of opposite party No.1 company. On 2010 June opposite party No.2 and 3 approached this complainant and compelled him to purchase shares from Bizarre Company. Attracted by the offers given by opposite parties that they are going to start a supermarket at Sulthan Bathery in the year 2013, and if the complainant will purchase shares of Rs.14,250/- he will get discount card for Rs.5,500/- together with future benefit of discount for each and every purchase from their proposed supermarket. Attracted by this offer complainant paid Rs.14,250/- to the 1^st opposite party on 02.07.2010 to purchase shares of opposite party No.1 company. When complainant enquired about the share certificate they offered that it will provide him later and they assured that they will start supermarket in January 2013. For every enquiry opposite parties repeated same offers. On believing this the complainant waited till 2013. But opposite parties not started supermarket anywhere at Sulthan Bathery. Thereafter from the medias complainant noticed that opposite parties cheated thousand of people by giving same offers. According to the complainant, this is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 and 3 are the agents of the opposite party No.1 company, they willfully done all these business tricks to gain money from the customers. Hence filed this complaint to get back the entrusted amount.

3. Notices served to opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed version. Opposite Party No.3 is not present and not filed version, hence set ex-parte and proceeded with the case. In the version, opposite party No.1 stated that this complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. They challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this matter. Opposite party No.2 further stated that they had no agent or employee anywhere in Wayanad District. The claim of the complainant in relation to his application for the shares of the company named M/s. BIZARRE Business Corporation Limited as per the records the complainant has remitted Rs.14,250/- in the company. Also complainant was allotted 11 privilege cards worth Rs.750/- and discount vouchers for worth Rs.5,500/-. Again they stated that the relationship between the complainant and this company is as share holder and company. The terms and dealings between a company and a share holder is governed by companies Act 1956 against the capital contributed by the complainant, due shares has been allotted to him as per the records maintained by the Registrar Of Companies (R.0.C) Thus the amount spent for shares became part of the permanent capital base of the Company. Again submitted that there is no provision in the Companies Act 1956 which enables individual share holders to claim refund of capital contributed by them. It is thus clear that the relationship between the share holder and the Company can never be construed as a service provider and a consumer. .It is further submitted that due to some untoward and unforeseen incidents, the Company was implicated in certain legal proceedings, based upon some misconceived and frivolous complaints during 2011-12. When the matter was brought to the consideration of the Honorable High Court of Kerala in W.P. (c) 6161/2013 and due to the intervention of the Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KELSA) an order was passed on 30.08.2013 in I.A No. 11115/2013 and thereby public notice has been caused calling for any claims against the Company. In pursuance of the said Order public notices were also published in all leading Dailies (including English and Malayalam Dailies). If the complainant had any sort of suspicion with respect to his fate of the Capital investment, as a share holder of the Company he could have opted the aforesaid proceedings before the Honorable High Court of Kerala, KELSA, and the Lok Adalath therein organized for the same. The averment and allegation in the complaint that the Company has not taken any measures to establish in S. Battery etc., are all false. As per the Company's decision and scheme the Company had purchased landed property in R S No. Block NO. 18 in R S No. 525/9 in S. battery Village, Wayanad District in the year 2010 itself and when the construction process in the property was delayed due to technical reasons the Company had by 20th April 2011 itself taken on lease a premises in Sulthan Bathery. All the systematic and time bound business initiations of the Company were interrupted subsequently due to the aforementioned legal actions for which the Company is in no way responsible either in law or on facts. After having understood the position of the company and its policy many of the claimants entered appearance before the High Court of Kerala and before the KELSA later withdrawn their complaint and expressed their intention to continue the ownership in the Company. The present complaint is only experimental in nature initiated either as a result of misconception or mal-advise. Opposite party No.2 further stated that the complainant is not entitled to claim or get any amount from this respondent as claimed in the complaint.

4. In the version, Opposite party No.2 denied his role in the company and he stated that the complainant himself acted as an agent of the 1^st opposite party. Then he himself purchased shares from the company of opposite party No.1. But later police intervened in this matter and they stopped the activities of the Bizarre company. Subsequently as per the Order of the Honorable High Court under the responsibility of KELSA some settlement officers were appointed, now they are the authorized persons appointed by the Order of Honorable High Court to handle the matters relating to Bizarre. Again the opposite party No.2 stated that this petition before this Forum is not maintainable. This Forum have no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Pay in slip for Rs.14,250/- dated 02.07.2010. Ext.A2 is the Discount Card 5 numbers. Ext.A3 is the Brochure of opposite party company. On receipt of Rs.14,250/- opposite party had given discount cards of Rs.5,500/-, share certificate not given till today. Opposite parties could not start business in Sulthan Bathery. Opposite parties admitted that complainant was allotted 11 privilege cards worth Rs.750/- and discount vouchers for worth Rs.5,500/- also complainant was allotted share in the company. As per the records of opposite party the amount spent for shares become part of the permanent capital basis of the company, there is no provision to share holder to claim refund of capital contributed by them. Hence the payment of Rs.14,250/- is admitted by both the parties, opposite parties could not perform their contract due to some unforeseen incidents, this complainant could not place his complainant before the Honorable High court of Kerala and before KELSA. All the business initiations of the company were interrupted due to the legal actions. Hence complainant could not approach opposite party in time to settle her issue. Now she is demanding the refund of the amount, she had already given as per Ext.A1. Opposite party admitted that they had already given privilege cards and discount vouchers for Rs.6,250/-. For the balance amount of Rs.8,000/-, No share certificate or anything given by opposite party. Both the parties admitted that the complainant is a shareholder of opposite party company. Complainant's case is that she had not received any share certificate, anyway opposite party failed to start business. The contract between opposite party and complainant is violated. Hence complainant is entitled to get back the paid amount. If complainant is a shareholder, how much is the share amount. Both parties failed to adduce evidence regarding the share amount. The quantum of the share amount is in question. We are not in a position to allow entire amount as per Ext.A1.

7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6,250/- as per discount card and privilege card.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.6,250/- (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) with 10% interest from the date of deposit till payment to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to issue share certificate/ if it is already given duplicate of the same to be issued to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. If the complainant had any sort of suspicion with respect to his rate of capital investment, as a shareholder of the company he can approach the Honorable High Court of Kerala, KELSA and the Lok Adalath therein organized to settle the issues relating to Bizarre matters. Since the matter is still pending before Honorable High Court.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19^th day of June 2015.

Date of Filing:31.12.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Thankamma. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Pay in slip. Dt:02.07.2010.

A2(1) to A2(5) Discount Vouchers for Rs.1,100/- each (5 Nos).

A3. Copy of Brochure.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-