By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing to Opposite Parties to pay Rs.9,000/- with 12% interest from 03.01.2009 till payment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- Due to the investigation of 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties, the Complainant on 03.01.2009 deposited Rs.9,000/- with 1st Opposite party company and joined as a share holder. The 1st Opposite party company issued share certificate of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant. 1st Opposite party company not started super market at Sulthan Bathery as promised even if 1st Opposite party company issued discount voucher for a sum of Rs.4,500/-. The act of Opposite Parties are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. 3rd Opposite party not appeared before the Forum and filed version and 3 Opposite Party is set exparte. In the version of 1st Opposite Party, 1st Opposite party have no such agents in Wayanad District. 1st Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had remitted Rs.9,000/- in the company and the company alloted Rs.2,000/- shares at a face value of Rs. 1 per share and Rs.1 as premium . The Company also issued privilege cards for Rs.500/- discount voucher for Rs.4,500/- to the Complainant. The relationship of company and the Complainant is a share holder and company relationship. The Company is registered under Companies Act 1956 and as per companies act, a share holder cannot claim share from the company. It forms part of capital of company. There are some cases against the Company in court and the company is trying for a settlement of the claims of share holders. Hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of 1st Opposite party.
4. In the version of 2nd Opposite Party. 2nd Opposite party contended that 2nd Opposite Party never made any dealing with the complaint and 2nd Opposite party do not know the dealing of Complainant with 1st Opposite party. The 2nd Opposite party denied all the material allegations in the complaint.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 series are the receipts issued by 1st Opposite party to the Complainant on depositing the amount. Ext.A2 series are the discount voucher, Ext.A3 is the share certificate and Ext.A4 is the profile of company. Even if 1st and 2nd Opposite Party filed version, 1st and 2nd Opposite Party did not adduce any oral evidence. On perusal , the Forum found that the 1st Opposite party company is registered under companies act 1956. As per Companies Act a share holder cannot claim the share amount back from the company since it becomes part of company's asset. But in this case, the Forum found that the 1st Opposite Party company issued privilege cards for Rs.500/- and discount voucher for Rs.4,500/- also to the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to get that amounts from the company. The company not started super market at Sulthan Bathery. As per version of 1st Opposite party, the company is now facing legal problems and the company is trying for settlement also. The Complainant had a specific case that the Complainant joined in the company as per the instigation of 2nd and 3rd Opposite party. The Complainant stated it in the complaint, proof affidavit and also in cross examination. 3rd Opposite party is exparte and 2nd Opposite party even if filed version not adduced any oral evidence and not cross examined the complaint. So the Complainant proved the
involvement of 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party also in this issue. So by analysing the entire evidence, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly
7. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred ) only being the value of privilege card and Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand Five hundred) only being the value of discount card to the Complainant with 12% interest from 31.01.2009 till the payment. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand ) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite parties shall comply the order jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:13.08.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Rachel. T.P Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1.(10 Numbers) Receipt.
A2 (9 Numbers) Discount Voucher.
A3. Share Certificate.
A4 (3 pages) Copy of Company Profile.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
