BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 140 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.06.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2017
Subhash Chander son of Sh. Jesa Ram, aged 60 years, r/o House No.434 Gali No.1, Near Neeru Bajaj House, Inderpuri, Band Gate, Sirsa (Haryana)
……Complainant.
Versus.
Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd., 455, Santej Vadasar Road, Tal: Kalol Distt. Gandhi Nagar, - 382723- Gujarat through its Managing Director.
… Opposite party no.1.
Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd., Unit 303, 3rd Floor, Shoppers Plaza V, Opposite Municipal Market, Behind Shoppers Plaza, V. Off C.G. Road, Ahmedabad- 380 009.
..…Opposite party No.2.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Subhash Chander complainant in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant held 184 shares of op no.1 vide Regd. Folio No.502683 for investment purpose and submitted request dated 3.9.2015 alongwith original six share certificates of 168 shares in toto with M/s Mansukh Stock Brokers Ltd., who forwarded the same to op no.2 i.e. Registrar and Transfer Agent for dematerialization of the shares and op no.2 returned the same to his Depository at its Chandigarh address vide its letter dated
15.9.2015 with the remarks that the op no.1 had restructured their share capital in January, 2008 and as per scheme of arrangement, the op no.1 had allotted 05. equity share against every one share held as on the record date fixed for the said purpose and the company will dispatch the new share certificate in exchange of old share certificates surrendered by the share holders and to submit old share certificates to the company at the given address and collect the new share certificates. It is further averred that op no.1 never informed him since January, 2008 for surrendering the old share certificates and to collect the new share certificates in place of the same. It is further averred that he requested the op no.1 vide registered letter dated 12.10.2015 to issue him the new share certificates in lieu of the old six shares certificates of 168 shares attached with the above referred letter dated 12.10.2015. The said letter alongwith six share certificates was sent by registered post on 13.10.2015. That as the op no.1 did not respond to his letter dated 12.10.2015, he reminded them vide letter dated 22.12.2015 and 24.1.2016 to issue him the new share certificates. It is further averred that in response to his above referred correspondence, the Registrar & Transfer Agent i.e. op no.2 informed him that new share certificate of 84 shares had been sent to him by the previous Registrar & Transfer Agent namely M/s. Pinnacle Shares Registry Pvt. Ltd. through Blazeflash Couriers Limited on 30.3.2009 and that till then the share certificate had not been returned as undelivered to the company. The op no.2 further informed about the procedure to be followed for issuance of the duplicate share certificate. As per procedure, the complainant was required to lodge FIR regarding loss of shares with the police, to further furnish Indemnity Bond of Rs.200/- on Non Judicial Stamp paper and an affidavit on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- in the format enclosed by them to be affirmed by Notary Public. They further advised to submit Bank verification from a bank where he was maintaining some saving account. The op no.2 further advised to furnish all these documents within 60 days. It is further averred that vide its letter dated 15.9.2015 to my depository, op no.2 informed them to advise him to surrender original share certificates then how the new share certificate was issued on 30.3.2009 as he had not surrendered the original share certificates of old shares till 12.10.2015 which proves that op no.2 had not informed the actual position. That in response to letter of op no.2 dated 3.2.2016, he requested them vide his letter dated 21.2.2016 to inform him the complete address of M/s. Pinnacle Shares Registry Pvt. Ltd. (the Old Registrar) to enable him to make correspondence with them directly and to collect and to send him the photo copy of proof of delivery of the said certificate duly attested by M/s. Blazeflash Courier Ltd. and to inform him the complete address of M/s. Blazeflash Courier Ltd. by whom the new share certificate of 84 shares was purported to have been sent to him by M/s. Pinnacle Shares Registry and to intimate him the complete address of M/s Blazeflash Courier ltd. located at Sirsa by whom the share certificate was purported to have been delivered to him to contact them and collect the photocopy of the proof of delivery from the said courier. It is further averred that as no response was received from op no.2 against my letter dated 21.2.2016, the complainant sent reminder dated 17.4.2016 with the request to expedite the same at an early date against which op no.2 acknowledged the receipt of his letter dated 17.4.2016 and informed him that his request ID for reference is RE30244. That as no response was received from both ops, he reminded the ops vide his emails dated 8.5.2016 and 2.10.2016. It is further averred that in response to his mail dated 2.10.2016, the op no.1 vide its letter dated 13.10.2016 advised him to send the original old share certificate to enable them to verify the same in their record to enable them to issue the new share certificate. In response to that letter, he informed them vide email dated 16.10.2016 that all six original share certificates of 168 shares held by him had already been sent to them vide his letter dated 12.10.2015 and further requested the ops to locate them at their end and to send new share certificate of 84 shares or credit the same to his demat account number, if possible. It is further averred that he further reminded both the ops vide email dated 20.11.2015 against which op no.1 vide its email dated 3.12.2016 advised him to send to them the front and back side scan copy of his old share certificates to which he replied vide his mail dated 6.1.2017 and sent scan copy of front side of the six share certificates only as he had no photocopy of back side of the said certificates with him at that stage. He further expressed his apprehension that they are adopting delaying tactics to harass him without any fault as he had sent to them the original share certificates by registered post on 13.10.2015 but instead of searching the same at their end they had advised him to send the scan copy of the same, which was not appreciable. Thereafter also the complainant has sent various emails to the ops and has also warned them to take legal recourse for claiming compensation and finally sent a legal notice dated 16.4.2017 to op no.1 against which the ops have turned a deaf ear which depicts their integrity. That as he never received the new share certificate of 84 shares of op company, he could not submit fake affidavit about the loss of the share certificates with the police for registering FIR and also could not execute indemnity bond and other papers as desired by them. That the act of the ops tentamounts to deficiency in service at their end resulting in unwarranted mental, physical and financial harassment to him since long and that too without any fault of complainant. From the facts narrated above, it is well established that both the ops have miserably failed to discharge their duty promptly and properly. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 sent its reply through registered post but failed to appear on the subsequent date inspite of the fact that personal appearance of op no.1 was exempted on 27.7.2017 in view of the request received on behalf of op no.1 in this regard on 25.7.2017. Similarly, op no.2 also failed to appear despite issuance of notice through registered post on 23.9.2017 and as such both the ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of letter Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 12.10.2015 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 3.2.2016 Ex.C4, copies of emails Ex.C5 to Ex.C14 and copy of legal notice Ex.C15.
4. We have heard the complainant and have perused the case file carefully as well as have gone through the case law cited by complainant in cases titled as Suahish Diamonds Ltd. Vs. Surekha & ors. I (2004) CPJ 511 (Maharashtra) and Paras Nath Singh vs. Post Master, Distt. Bokaro, 2006 (2) JRC 331 (NC).
5. It is pertinent to mention here that after institution of the present complaint, on notice to the opposite parties though ops did not appear before this Forum through any representative and were proceeded against exparte but it is also to be seen that opposite parties have informed through registered post received on 30.10.2017 about the delivery of share certificate of 84 shares in duplicate to the complainant. In this regard, a copy of share certificate issued on 6.9.2017 has also been received. Thus, the main grievance of the complainant regarding non issuing of duplicate share certificate has been redressed. However, the opposite parties have delayed the matter in issuing duplicate share certificate to the complainant despite various reminders/ mails of the complainant and ultimately the complainant has to file the present complaint and only thereafter the ops have resolved to issue duplicate share certificate to the complainant. It is proved beyond doubt that the ops were deficient in service towards the complainant, therefore, in our view the complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.11.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
