Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/270

S.S.Oberoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 270 of 22.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   07.10.2015

 

Surjit Singh Oberoi, 27FF HIG Flat, Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Dena Bank, near Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2.Dena Bank, Dena Corporate Centre, C-10, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For Ops                         :         Sh.Parminder Rattan, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Surjit Singh Oberoi filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he is holder of 900 shares of Dena Bank. Extra ordinary meeting of the bank was called on 23.3.2015. Copy of extra ordinary meeting to be held on 23.3.2015 was to reach 10 days before the date of meeting under Clause 358 of Listing Agreement read with Banks (Management & Administration Rules, 2014). Complainant claims that courier was received by him on 2.4.2015. It is claimed that if Ops have committed deficiency in service by not delivering of a notice of meeting in time, then complainant should be granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Ops in joint written statement claimed interalia as if the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. Moreover, complaint alleged to be filed against the official of the bank for harassing them on account of personal grudge with the bank officer. Complaint alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Admittedly, copy of notice of extra ordinary meeting to be held on 23.3.2015 was to reach before 10 days before the date of meeting under clause 358 of Listing Agreement read with Banks (Management and Administration Rules, 2014). It is denied that courier was received by the complainant on 2.4.2015. In fact the bank has already published notice through news paper regarding extra ordinary meeting in news paper Business Standard dated 26.2.2015. Bank has listed before the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and National Stock Exchange regarding the notice of extra ordinary meeting of share holders on 23.2.2015. Copy of that notice was sent to Vice President of Bombay Stock Exchange, from whom, an email qua receipt of notice was received. Representative of complainant namely Amarpreet received the courier regarding the extra ordinary meeting. No deficiency in service on the part of Ops              is there. Complainant was fully aware of the extra ordinary meeting held on 23.3.2015 and as such, prayer made for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with document Ex.C1 and then closed the evidence.

4                 On the other hand, Sh.Surjit Singh, Branch Manager of OPs tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 to  Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence of Ops.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of parties. Only oral arguments by the complainant and counsel for OPs addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                There is no dispute regarding fact that extra ordinary meeting of share holders of Dena Bank was to be held on 23.2.2015 at 10.30 A.M. Notice Ex.R1 to the Vice President of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Mumbai was sent and the same was published in newspapers as revealed by paper publication  Ex.R2. Letter of thanks for calling such extra ordinary meeting even is produced as Ex.R3 and same shown to be sent to Sh.Surjit Singh through HPL Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the courier agency. Entry at Serial No.10038 and 10084 in that respect was incorporated by the said courier agency. Both these consignments were received by Amarpreet Singh by putting signature on Ex.R5. Complainant claims  that he does not know Amarpreet Singh and as such, notice was not received by him. However, in para no.2 of affidavit Ex.CA, it is claimed that the complainant received the said notice on 2.4.2015. If at all complainant received the said notice on 2.4.2015, then he should have produced the registered cover and the notice in original, but the same has not been produced and as such, complainant has withheld the best available evidence in that respect. On the other hand, Ops have produced on record the documentary evidence to prove that notice of meeting was sent to complainant as well as to the Vice President and even to the public through paper publication. Even email correspondence Ex.R4 of date 23.2.2015 shows that notice of this meeting was sent to others also.

7.                 Section 172 of Companies Act, 1965 provides that notice of every meeting of the company will be given to the member of the company as per provisions of Section 53(1) to (4) of Companies Act, 1965. Notice of such meeting may be given by advertising in the newspapers circulating in the neighbourhood of the registered office of the company as per proviso appended under Section 172(2) of the Companies Act, 1965. The meeting will not be invalidated due  to  omission to give notice or due to non receipt of the      notice by any members or any person to whom it should be given as per Section 172(3) of the Companies Act, 1965. Complainant as share holder of the company claims himself to be entitled to receipt of such notice. Procedure for service of notice of meeting by the companies has been laid down under the Companies Act and penalty for disobeying stipulated there under. So dispute raised is a dispute covered by the provisions of the Companies Act.

8.                      Consumer has been defined under Section 2(d) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that a person who buys any goods for consideration or who hires or avail any service for consideration, which has been paid or promised to be paid or to be partly paid or partly promised to be       paid. However, a person availing services for any commercial purpose is not a consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The dispute in this case has been raised by the complainant not as a consumer, but as a share holder of Dena Bank, a body corporate under the provisions of Companies Act. Dispute between the share holders and company qua service of notice of an extra ordinary meeting is certainly a commercial dispute and not     a consumer dispute.The complaint has been filed against Ops without impleading  the courier service through whom, notice was sent and as such submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that this complaint has been filed for harassing the officials of the bank.

9.                As per law laid down in case Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.), in case, a software is purchased by a private limited company being run by a Director without impleading that business carried for earning livelihood, then complainant cannot be treated as consumer. Further as per law laid down in case Krishan Lal Kalra vs. Religate Securities Limited and others-II(2015)CPJ-338(N.C.), in case, regular   trading in sale or purchase of share carried out, then activity concerning that will be   a commercial  activity  carried for  earning  profit, due to which,       complainant will not be a consumer. In this case also complaint claims himself to be a share holder due to holding of 900 shares on account of which, he claims right to be called in the extra ordinary meeting and as such, activity carried out by the complainant either covered by the provisions of the Companies Act or the same is a commercial activity and as such, consumer complaint is not at all maintainable.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of orders be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                                    (G.K.Dhir)

           Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

On 07.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma