Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/256/2022

RAM MEHAR SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2024

ORDER

                     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

                                             RBT/Complaint Case No. 256/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Ram Mehar Singla & Smt. Kamlesh Singla R/o Flat No. 114, Canara Apartments Sector 13 Rohini New Delhi-110085		Complainant
		Versus
		Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd. 8, Indian Exchange Place, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700001		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		11.09.18 26.02.24 06.05.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant           

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that Complainants purchased 200 shares of 10 each of Himadri Chemical on 26.03.1996. The details are as under:

 

 

S.No.	No. of Shares	Distinctive Nos.	Certificate No.	Name of Seller	Purchase Date	Sent for transfer on
1.	100	8836057-156	69271	Khedwal Investment Pvt. Ltd.	26.03.1996	29.03.1996
2.	100	876701-800	35207	KusumBehl	26.03.1996	29.03.1996

 

2. The shares videDistinctive Nos. 876701-800were transferred in name of Complainants and same were returned back alongwith covering letter HC/28-02-96/000108 dated 19.04.96 of A M I Computers India Ltd.(Registrars).It is alleged that theshares  vide Distinctive Nos. 8836057-156were never transferred to name of Complainant and Complainant has been corresponding with transfer agents and company from time to time but of no use. The Complainant had given various letters to the company and the transfer agent but all in vain. The Complainant also lodged the complaint at SEBIbut all in vain. The Complainant had also sent various reminders and mails but Complainant’sissue was not resolved. The Complainant has also made complaint to SEBI on 19.03.18 and in response to SEBIcomplaint the transfer agents replied vide their letter SKC/HSCL/RMS/002 dated 06.04.18. It is stated that in reply to the said letter Complainant sent letter and details vide letter dated 19.04.18. Hence this shows callous attitude of company. The company issued duplicate certificates to Khedwal Investment Pvt. Ltd.might be after obtaining indemnity from them. In this way company colluded with the seller in issuing them duplicate certificate and facilitated them to sell the shares to Tara Pada Swarnokar. The Complainant has communicated regularly with company and transfer agents but they were not responding to Complainant.  Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to issue direction to the company to transfer 100 shares of Rs. 10 each in their names with retrospective date and company be asked to pay all/dividends/bonus since the date of purchase. The Complainant has also prayed for award cost and other expenses of Rs. 25,000/-.

Case of the Opposite Party

3. The Opposite Partycontested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party has taken preliminary objection to the complaint that the Complainants do not fall within the purview of consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and they cannot maintained the instant complaint. The Opposite Party has further objected that even if the Complainants are assumed as consumers and the allegations as true, the matter was required to be agitated before National Company Law tribunal. The Opposite Party has taken inter alia the ground that allegations made in the complaint are wholly unsubstantiated as no document has been placed on record to show that they were shareholders of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party has contended that the Complainants have neither disclosed any proof of alleged purchase of shares nor any proof of alleged dispatch of purported share purchase documents. In view of above facts, the complaint needs to be dismissed for being vexatious and spurious.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

4. The Complainants filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein they denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partyand has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant Sh. Ram Mehar Singla in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Ms. Monika Saraswat, Company Secretary and Compliance Officer of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard theLd. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
8. The case of the Complainants is that they purchased 200 shares of Opposite Party company. It is alleged that out of 200 shares only 100 shares were transferred in favour of the Complainants while the other 100 shares were never transferred in their favour. Despite various requests, reminders and complaints to SEBI, the issue has not been resolved which shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party company, While the case of the Opposite Party is that first of all the Complainants are not consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits , it is contended that no document has been placed on record to show that the Complainants were shareholders of the Opposite Party, hence the allegations made in the complaint are wholly unsubstantiated.
9. In their reply to the complaint, the Opposite Party has taken the preliminary objection that the Complainants are not consumers. The Complainants have denied the contention and asserted that they fall within the purview of Consumer Act.
10.  The main question for consideration is that whether the Complainants are covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
11. The definition of consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as follows;

“Section2 (1)(d) Consumer” means any person who-

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2.  hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;”

12.  The counsel of Opposite Party has relied upon latest judgement passed by Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi on  06.03.2023 in an Appeal no.74/2015 titled RamaswamiSanathanam Vs. The Manager, KarurVysays bank Ltd. and others (MANU/QI/0013/2023) where the issue involved was related to transaction of shares.
13.  In above noted judgement, Hon’ble State Commission has dealt with similar issue and while considering the definition of “consumer” as given under Section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 observed as follows:

“8.On a careful perusal of the provision of the Act it is evident that transaction for commercial purpose are outside the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision save the condition when availing of the service is exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Exception is carved out to the limited extent of these two factors and both the factors must exist to be within the parameters of Section 2(1)(d). To put it differently there should be personal use while availing the services unconnected with any commercial angle, profit or dividend.”

14. In the above noted matter, Hon’ble State Commission referred to various judgements passed by Hon’ble National Commission and held as follows:

“ The Complainant/Appellant does not fall in the category of Consumer provided by the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and therefore, consumer courts cannot adjudicate the present dispute”

15. Coming back to the facts of present complaint, it is evident from the complaint itself that issue involved is related to the transaction of shares which is of commercial nature. It is also worth to note that the Complainants have nowhere pleaded in the complaint that they were dealing with the shares as self-employment for livelihood.
16. It is well settled that disputes of commercial nature are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and consumer courts cannot adjudicate the present dispute.
17.  In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that since the Complainants do not qualify as consumers under Section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, present complaint is not maintainable.
18.  Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
19. Order announced on 06.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President