COMPLAINT FILED ON: 30.07.2009
DISPOED ON: 13.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
13th DAY OF JUNE-2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B. S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.1815/2009
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Smt. Shobhana Rajasekharan, W/o Mr. Rajasekharan, Aged about 65 years, R/at ‘Deepthi’, Naduvattam, P O Beypore North, Kozhikode, Kerala – 673 015. Advocate: Sri. S. Nagaraja & Others V/s. 1. M/S TATA STEEL LTD., Registered office at Bombay House, 24, Honey Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 2. M/S LINK INTIME PVT. LTD., (Formerly In time Spectrum Registry Limited) C-13, Pannala Silk Mills Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400 078. 3. City Bank, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, Maharastra. Advocate for OP-3: Sri. M.V.Kini & Others 4. Global Transaction Service, City Bank, Prestige Meridian – 1, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 1. Ex-Parte |
O R D E R S
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to order for issue of right issue shares or to refund Rs.45,000/- paid towards said shares with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay an amount of Rs.14,000/- spent by the complainant for visiting and making phone calls to OP, for compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant applied for rights issue of Tata Steel Ltd., i.e., OP-1 and sent the application form (CAF) in November – 2007 along with application, by taking DD for Rs.45,000/- vide No.027893 from ICICI bank, Bangalore and submitted the application form and DD to Global Transaction Service (OP-4), they being the collection agents for the OP-1 rights issue. The complainant obtained acknowledgement from OP-3. The complainant did not receive any intimation regarding allotment of shares, the complaint was sent to the Registrar of the issue (OP-2) on 07.03.2008 for which the complainant did not receive any information. Complainant sent a reminder to OP-2 on 12.03.2008, in spite of which OP-2 failed to furnish any information. Complainant requested OP-3 to confirm whether the application submitted with DD have been forwarded to the Registry i.e. OP-2, in due time with all particulars. The Manager, Customer Care of OP-3 by its letter dated 28.04.2008 informed the complainant to contact the Registrar of Tata Steel Rights and further informed that the Demat Account number which had been given is not available with Citi Bank. For the said letter, the complainant replied on 12.05.2008 mentioning that the Demat Account number does not affect the issue for furnishing the information regarding the application. The only request made to the OP-3 is whether they have sent the DD and application to OP-2 in time or not, but OP-3 has not furnished any information in that regard to the complainant as on date. The complainant sent another letter dated 27.03.2008 to the company Secretary of OP-1 to inform about the status for application and concern about the amount of Rs.45,000/- paid by way of DD. The complainant failed to receive any communication from OP-1, again she requested Managing Director, Tata Steel Ltd., to verify and to inform regarding her right issue, for which as on date no information has been received by her. OP-2 sent a letter dated 16.10.2008 requesting the complainant to provide folio number and bank serial number for verification of records in respect of non-receipt of share of Tata Steel Ltd., even though the complainant had furnished all the details to OP-2 on 29.02.2008. As the OPs failed to furnish any information, a legal notice dated 04.02.2009 was issued and OP-2 replied for the same stating that the complainant should provide the 16 digit demat account number, CAF number, existing folio number, bank serial number. Even though all the details have furnished much earlier on 29.02.2008, instead of giving the details of whether they received DD for Rs.45,000/- and application again and again they are asking for the same. Once again the complainant sent a copy of the legal notice to OPs on 24.03.2009, inspite of which OPs failed to furnish any details. OPs 1 to 3 are not taking any responsibility regarding issue of shares or for the amount of Rs.45,000/- paid by the complainant, hence all the three OPs are gaining time and not responding properly to the complainant, which shows deficiency in service on the part of all the three OPs. The OPs after collecting Rs,45,000/- failed to issue right issue shares which would have fetched higher value in the past i.e. more than double or even up to three times and the complainant had spent about Rs.14,000/- towards visiting OP-3, for telephone calls to all three OPs etc., and the same also caused mental agony and hardship, the complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- from OPs. Hence the complaint claiming above stated reliefs.
3. On appearance, OPs 1 and 2 filed versions with identical contentions contending that OP-1 is an existing company within the meaning under the Companies Act. OP-2 is a company duly registered under the Companies Act being a SEBI registered share transfer agent are Registrar and Share Transfer Agents of many companies. The name of OP-2 has been changed to “Link Intime India Limited” on 02.12.2008 and subsequently changed to “Link Intime India Private Limited” on 06.01.2009. It is stated that the complaint is liable to be rejected, since the complaianant is not a “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the registered office of OP-1 is situated in Mumbai and the appropriate Forum would be a court of proper jurisdiction in Mumbai only. The name of OP-3 is incorrect, the complainant for claims to have applied in the rights issue of OP-1 by tendering a DD for an amount of Rs.45,000/- drawn on ICICI bank, Bangalore with OPs-3 and 4 and in view of this OPs-3 and 4 are able to confirm or deny the same. OP-2 had sent a letter in response to the legal notice informing that inspite of best efforts, OPs are unable to locate details of the application claimed by the complainant and further sought 16 digits demat account number, CAF number, existing folio number and bank serial number, the complainant has not provided the bank serial number. OP-2 had acted as Registrar for the rights issue of OP-1. In a right issue OPs-1 and 2 will be able to process allotment / refund only if the collection banker confirms collection of payment from the applicant. In this case OPs-3 and 4 has not confirmed collection of payment from the complainant in their collection schedule, which invariably means that OPs-3 and 4 had not collected payment from the complainant. There was no consideration paid by the complainant which is mandatory pre-condition for lodging complaint. Though complainant has informed that she has tendered a DD for an amount of Rs.45,000/- and claims to have lodged the same with OPs-3 and 4. OPs-1 and 2 confirms to have not received said the application form through collection banker for processing. Complainant has not provided any conclusive proof to that, payment with respect to the above claimed DD was transferred to the collection account of OP-1 for the subject rights issue. There is no deficiency in service on behalf of OPs-1 and 2, the complainant has to approach collection banker, complainant demanding for a claim of Rs.50,000/- or any other claims or interest is baseless. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against OPs-1 and 2 with costs.
4. OP-3 filed version contending that it is merely a collecting agent for the right issue of OP-1; the complainant raised a dispute regarding applications submitted on 08.12.2007. This OP is unable to trace the relevant records prepared while forwarding the applications to the OP-2 due to lapse of time. The complaint is silent regarding encashment of DD for Rs.45,000/-, the complainant has not mentioned the name of the branch of ICICI bank which has issued the DD. OP contacted the ICICI bank to get payment details of DD in order to investigate the dispute, but the ICICI bank has not furnished any details. As a result, this OP is unable to make further investigation in the matter. ICICI bank is a proper and necessary party to the dispute. The complainant may be directed to implead ICICI bank in order to resolve the dispute. The complainant has neither proved payment of Rs.45,000/- to OP-3 nor disclosed whether DD issued by ICICI bank was encashed or not. Hence the claim for refund of Rs.45,000/- from OP-3 is not tenable. There is no negligence or deficiency of service from OP-3. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. OP-4 in spite of service of notice failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.
6. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the Company Secretary of 1st OP, Associate Vice President of 2nd OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. The officer-cum-legal of 3rd OP filed affidavit evidence and produced courier consignment note copy in support of the defence version.
7. The complainant and OPs 1 and 2 filed written submissions. The OP3 filed written Arguments. Arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the
deficiency in service on the part of the
OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for
the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- In Negative.
Point No.2:- In Negative.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
9. The 1st OP is a company, the OP-2 is registry for the 1st OP. The 4th OP is the collection agent and a division of OP3. The complainant claims that she had applied for rights issue of the 1st OP and submitted application form(CAF)in the month of November-2007 by obtaining D.D of Rs.45,000/-vide No.027893 from ICICI Bank, Bangalore to 4th OP being the collection agent for 1st OP. Thereafter, she had not received any information regarding allotment of share from OPs 1 and 2. The 3rd OP sought the required details and the complainant furnished the same by her letter dt.12.05.2008 but no information has been furnished by the OP3. The OPs 1 and 2 who are requested to inform about the status of her application and the concerned about the amount, she has not been informed anything. As the OPs failed to give correct details of her amount of Rs.45,000/- or about allotment of shares, she felt deficiency in service, the complainant filed complaint seeking directions to order for issue of right issue shares or to refund Rs.45,000/- paid towards the said shares with interest.
10. It may be noted that OPs.1 & 2 will be able to process allotment/refund only if the collection banker confirms collection of payment from the applicant. The OPs 3 and 4 has not confirmed collection of payment from the complainant, in their collection schedule, which means that the OPs 3 and 4 had not collected any payment from the complainant. The OPs 1 and 2 have not received the application form through collection banker i.e., OP3 for processing. In view of the same, the OPs 1 and 2 cannot be held responsible either to allot the shares or to refund the amount of Rs.45,000/-. The complainant has not produced any material to show that the D.D.amount of Rs.45,000/- has been credited to the account of the 1st OP and no endorsement had been obtained from the Bank which issued the D.D to confirm as to which account the amount of the said D.D has been credited.
11. The demand draft was required to be drawn on ICICI Bank payable at the collection centre where the application is submitted. The complainant has submitted application to 4th OP at Bangalore the collection Centre but the D.D.for Rs.45,000/- drawn was not on ICICI Bank, Bangalore but the same was drawn on Mumbai Branch. Therefore, the 3rd OP was unable to process the application, the application was returned with D.D to the complainant on 11.12.2007 through DTDC Courier as per consignment note No.1341493533, a copy of which has been produced. The complainant has falsely alleged in the complaint and in her affidavit evidence that the said D.D for Rs.45,000/- was drawn on ICICI Bank, Bangalore. The acknowledgement obtained from the 3rd OP for having submitted the application produced by the complainant clearly reveals that the D.D for Rs.45,000/-was drawn on ICIC Bank, Mumbai. In view of the D.D being drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch the application submitted by the complainant at Bangalore could not be processed. Hence the same is returned to the complainant through DTDC Courier. There is no material to hold that the said D.D has been encashed and the amount has been credited to the account of 1st OP. Nothing prevented the complainant to obtain certification from ICICI Bank, Mumbai with regard to the amount of the said D.D. being credited and the account number. Under these circumstances, we are of the view of that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of June– 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs:v
