Order-13.
Date-22/06/2015.
Complainant Shrish Bagla by filing this complaint submitted that in 2004 op no.3 made a Public Issue of its shares and the bid was started from 29.07.2004 and continued till 05.08.2004 in which op no.1 was playing the role of one of the Official Banker of that event and the Registrar of the entire event was the op no.4.
In order to purchase a total 49 shares of the op no.3, complainant made an application through the op no.1 and by depositing his earnest money on 03.08.2004 also deposited a sum of Rs. 18,260/- including the bank and other charges to the op no.1 thorough a cheque being no. 634004 drawn on Indian Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch, Kolkata – 700007 (A/c No. 8306) in favour of the op no.1 into the account being No. 060102000056081 and also opened a De-mat account with the op no.1 being no. 004102000021669 and Client Id No. 12199882, DP Id No. IN300450.
Thereafter the said bid was closed by the op no.3, but inspite of lapse of several days neither any share of the op no.3 is allotted in favour of complainant nor the complainant received any information about the fate of his application from any corner.However from an online publication of the op no.3, the complainant is somehow gathered information that all the refunds for the rejected application was dispatched by the op by 20.08.2004, but till now the complainant is yet to receive any refund against the earnest amount invested by him in order to purchase those shares.
Thereafter a series of communication made by the complainant over the op no.1 but no response was received by the complainant.Complainant also made a request before the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch, Kolkata – 700007 for information about the clearance of the impugned cheque being no. 634004 dated 03.08.2004 of Rs. 18,260/- drawn on Indian Bank, Vivekananda Road Branch, Kolkata.
Thereafter a demand notice was sent by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant only that after 05.09.2013 ops replied to the complainant asking him for certain information.Soon after that complainant went to the office of the op no.2 and supplied all necessary information.But even then complainant went to the office of op no. 1 for getting the result of the said application, cheque.But op did not take any step and for that non-payment of the refund amount to the complainant and for not relying the aspect of the complainant by the op and also for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op no.1, complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund of the entire amount with interest and also for compensation etc. for harassing the complainant.
In the present case IDBI Bank Authorities are made parties as op nos. 1 & 2 and TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. is made a party as op no.3 and Karvey Computershare Pvt. Ltd. is op no.4.Notices were duly served upon all the ops, but only op no.4 by filing written statement submitted that complainant was merely an applicant, who applied for allotment of shares.There is no contract either for buying goods or hiring or availing any services for consideration between the complainant and the ops.So, the complaint is not maintainable.
Moreover op no.4 acted as Registrar to issue (IPO) is very limited to the extent of allotment of shares and in case of any default of refunding the money the Registrar has no role to play as the collection banker is the bank which had been entrusted the task of collection of application money on behalf of the issuer company.As per complaint, complainant has not been allotted any share.So, there is no question of any liability on the part of the op no.4 Registrar of the Company and so no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant.Moreover this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law for which it shall be dismissed and practically all allegations against the op no.1 which received the application for purchasing shares.
But anyhow op nos. 1, 2 & 3 did not contest this case for which this case is heard accordingly.
Decisions with reasons
On critical appreciation of the complaint and the written version of the op no.4 and also considering the application for purchasing shares of Tata Consultant Services Ltd. (TCS) made by the complainant through op no.1, it is clear that op no.1 was authorized to receive application for Public issue of shares and he was official banker of the op no. 3 and no doubt complainant submitted application form to the op no.1 but depositing a sum of Rs. 18,260/- on 03.08.2004 and that amount was paid to IDBI Bank Account no. 060102000056081 having A/c No. 8306 of Indian Bank and the process was made by the op no.1.But after that no intimation was made by the op no.1 regarding the fact of publication of purchasing shares and subsequently complainant came to learn from op no.3’s website declaration that the Board of Directors of TCS Ltd. at its meeting held at Mumbai on 19.08.2004 has approved the basis of allocation of shares as above and allotted the shares to various successful applicants.But the Refund Orders have ben dispatches on Friday, 20.09.20104 to the address of the investors as registered with the depositories.The refund orders have been printed with the Bank Mandate details as registered, if any, with the depositories and the share allocated to the successful applicants have been credited to their beneficiary accounts subject to validation of the account details with the depositories concern.
So, considering that publication of the op no.3, it is clear that the applications were allotted the shares and those allocation were not made.Op no.3 passed Refund Orders and which had been deposited on 20.08.2004 to the Bank that is to the op no.1.But fact remains that op no.1 did not take any steps and ultimately complainant again and again went to the op no.1 and ultimately on 05.09.2013 op no.1 asked the complainant to supply purchasing requisites and TCS shares that is application number, client ID, DP name, DP ID and date of application etc.
After considering the materials on record, it is found that complainant already supplied the details of the queries made by the op no.1 vide their letter dated 05.09.2013.After that op no.1 did nothing.Most interesting factor is that op no.1 received application, but money was deposited to the op no.1 and all other acts shall be done by the op no.1 and when op no.3 already declared that the applicant whose application has not been accepted for issuing public share, their amount has been refunded to the bank to whom it was deposited.
Op nos. 1 & 2 received the summons, but they did not contest this case.In indicates that they are well aware of the fact that they have done wrong.If they appeared before this Forum to contest this case, in that case they shall be penalized for their over act and for negligent and deficient manner of service and it is a common practice of the Bank not to appear before Forum when it is found fault that they have their fault and in the present case same incident was happened.
No doubt complainant has been harassed by the op nos. 1 & 2 in all ways.Fact remains that the Bank Authority op nos. 1 & 2 acted illegally when admittedly that bank knows very well the application number after purchasing shares of the complainant being IPO Application No. 3/4525859 because that number was given by the op no.1 Bank, amount was received by the op no.1 Bank i.e. Rs. 18,260/- on 03.08.2004 from the complainant.It is also fact that op no.1 failed to hand over any share certificate.So, as per order of the op no.3, invariably the said amount has been refunded to the account of the op no.1 Bank and same was deposited by the op no.3 long back.But till today complainant has not received the same from the Bank and that amount of Rs. 18,260/- was drawn by the op no.1 Bank and Bank Manager provided him of the said as per cheque which bears clearance stamp on the ground op no.1 on its face.
At the same time complainant supplied his client Id No. 12199882, DP No. IN300450 and all other details and practically everything are within the knowledge of the op no.1.But op no.1 did not pay any heed and did not give any redress and considering that fact, it is clear that op nos. 1 & 2 are negligent for refunding the said amount, even after receipt of the said amount because it was refunded to the account of the op no.1 initially on the ground op no.1 was official banker who used to sell that application for shares to the customers and considering the above fact and circumstances and materials, we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 & 2 did not pay any heed, even after supplied of details as required by op no.1 which tantamounts to deceitful manner of service made by the op nos. 1 & 2 and at the same time they are kept the said amount in their fund and has been enjoying the same.
But complainant is being deprived by the op no.1for which the present complaint succeeds against op nos. 1 & 2 for their negligent and deficient manner.But op no.4 is registrar of the company upon whom no liability can be fixed in view of the fact that he shall be registrar of those applications which are accepted by the companies.But after application op no.4 found no shares were received by the op no.3 in favour of the complainant for which it was not register and for that reason the complaint fails against op no.4.
Similarly it is the duty of the op no.3 to give such reply but that has not been done by op no.3 and for which op no.3 is also bound to give proper redressal to the complainant by issuing such order or letter to the complainant that he has already deposited the same.But fact remains that op no.3 published the same in the website and that has not been complied by the op, but op nos. 1 & 2 have not refunded that amount and in view of the above fact, there is some deficiency on the part of the op no.3 for which complaint succeeds against op no.3 also in exparte form.
In the result, the complaint succeeds against op nos. 1, 2 & 3 and fails against op no.4.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against op nos. 1, 2 & 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each and same is dismissed against op no.4 without any cost.
Op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby directed to refund the entire amount received by the op no.1 from the complainant for application for purchasing the shares of the complainant and shall have to pay the said amount of Rs. 18,260/- and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassing the complainant without any reason and also for not taking any action even after supply of all the details as required by the op nos. 1 & 2 vide their letter dated 05.09.2013.
Op no.3 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for not informing the details order to the complainant by sending it to the Bank and also to complainant.
Op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall have to pay penal damages at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are reluctant to comply the order, in that case, op nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall be prosecuted u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against them.
