BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of September 2011
Filed on : 24/01/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 49/11
Between
Prabulchandra Amratlal shah, : Complainant
C/o. Sha Amratlal Devsee, (party-in-person)
V/185, Bazar road, Mattancherry,
Kochi-682 002.
And
M/s. Karvy Computershree (P) Ltd., : Opposite party
17-24, Vittal Rao Nagar, (party-in-person)
Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.
(Andhra)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant sent his shares for DEMAT though the opposite party on 14-12-2007. But the opposite party refused to DEMAT the same stating that both signatures of the complainant mis match . As per the direction of SEBI only after a lapse of 20 months the opposite party demated the shares of the complainant. In the meantime share value came down due to the market fluctuations. The complainant had to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- and penal interest for 20 months. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a total compensation of Rs. 11,500/-.
2. Version of the opposite party.
The Court/Forum at Hyderabad alone shall jurisdiction in respect of matters raised by the complainant. No cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, since he has alluded to losses an account of share market speculations. It was because of the refusal of the complainant to furnish FIR/police complaint that the issue of duplicate share certificate took time and it was only after the consent and waiver obtained from the company as a special case that the process for issue of duplicate share to the complainant was put in motion. The approval for issue of duplicate shares was given by the company on 07-08-2007 and the share certificate was printed and sent to the complainant in November 2007. The demat request of the complainant was rejected by over sight. The opposite party vide letter dated 04-01-2008 requested the complainant to generate a fresh request for demat but he did not do so. In the meantime he approached the Securities and Exchange Board of India. On receiving the direction from SEBI once again the opposite party requested the complainant to issue a fresh demat request, thereafter the procedure was completed. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant, Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
ii. Whether this Forum; has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- with its interest from the opposite party for the delay for demat?
iv. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the dispute between the parties related to shares. As per Section S.2(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act the definition of the term ‘goods’ is the same as that of the definition of the Sale of Goods Act. Not controverted any where. The term ‘goods’ is defined in S (2) (7) of the Act reads as follows:
“‘Goods’ means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money, and includes stock and shares growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale” Again not controverted. Sustained hence.
6. Point No. ii. Apart from the averments in the version nothing is on record to sustain that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. For reasons said above and hence rejected.
7. Point No. iii. Admittedly, even as per the opposite party the demat request of the complainant was rejected by them due to an oversight. The consumer has been wronged hence. According to them when they detected the short fall immediately intimated the complainant to generate a fresh request for demat. It is stated that instead of taking any steps as requested by the opposite party the complainant opted to approach the SEBI. At the instance of the SEBI the opposite party demated the complainant’s shares. Admittedly there is a delay of 20 months in demating the shares of the complainant, which caused a loss of Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant for no fault of his in addition to a sum Rs. 7,500/-. However substantially nothing is before us to the claim of Rs. 7,500/- which we feel is tall. We are only to decline the same. Having at the beginning admitted the claim of the complainant of Rs. 4,000/-.
8. In the result, we are only to partly allow the complaint for reasons stated above to direct that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : copy of letter dt. 23-12-2007
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 26-03-2010
A3 : Copy of letter dt.01-04-2010
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 12/11/2007
A5 : Copy of dematerialization request form.
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 23-12-2007
A7 : Copy of affidavit for duplicate
share certificate
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 08-07-2009
A9 : Copy of statement dt. 18-09-2009
A10 : Copy of data
Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil