Haryana

Karnal

CC/309/2022

Vivek Kapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra And Mahindra Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Rana

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 309 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.27.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:01.06.2022

 

Vivek Kapur son of late Shri R.P. Kapur, resident of Madhuban District Karnal, age 77 years (Aadhar card no.6151 2576 7822)

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Regd. office: Gateway Building, Apollo, Bunder, Mumbai-400039 through its Director/Manager.

 

2.     Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Transfer Agent of Mahindra and Mahindra, 912 Raheja Centre, Free Press Journal Road, Nriman Point, Mumbai-400021 through its Director/Manager.

 

3.     Citibank N.A., Mail Room no.2, Club house Road, Chennai-600002 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Amit Rana, counsel for complainant.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant was the holder of 16 shares vide registered Folio no.MLK03695, certificate no.00203951 Distinctive no(s) 13958457 to 13958472 issued by OP no.1 in the year 1984. In the year 1987 the OP no.1 with the consent and knowledge of the complainant transferred the abovesaid shares to OP no.3 City Bank on 23.01.1987, vide transfer no.76872 Register Folio no.C-2413 a collateral in Citibank account no.0066127001. This account was closed in or around 2001 and the original share certificate alongwith transfer deed and power of attorney of Citibank was given to the complainant. The complainant applied to the transfer agent i.e. OP no.2 to transfer the shares in the name of complainant upon which a reply was received on 28.03.2013 that they are unable to transfer for reasons mentioned as under:-

        “old/invalid/Defunct Share Certificate nos. stand cancelled and non-transferable, in lieu thereof, new and valid share certificate have been allotted and posted to the registered share holders”.

It is clear that the registered share holder continues to the OP no.3. Thereafter, complainant wrote a letter to OP no.3 on 21.03.2016 regarding the transfer of shares of OP no.1 in favour of complainant which was duly received by OP no.3, through OPs no.2 and OP no.3 sent a reply on March 23, 2016 that the request is under process. OP no.3 sent a letter to complainant upon which complainant sent a reply of this letter and handed over the necessary documents to the OP no.3, vide application dated 23.04.2013. Thereafter, complainant received a letter from OP no.3 regarding the request made by the complainant and it was assured by the OP no.3 that his request will be updated on 29.03.2016. After waiting sufficient period the complainant wrote various letters to OP no.3 regarding shares certificate and the subsequent bonus shares/dividends but all in vain. On 20.1.2022 complainant wrote a letter to OP no.3 through registered post and requested to release the shares certificate alongwith bonus shares/dividend funds in favour of complainant but OP no.3 did not care the same. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

3.           On perusal of the complaint, it reveals that, as per version of the complainant OP no.1 had issued the shares in question to the complainant in the year 1984. In the year 1987 with the consent of complainant, OP no.1 transferred the shares to the OP no.3 in account no.0066127001. This account was closed in the year 2001 and original share certificate alongwith transfer deed and power of attorney of OP no.3 was given to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant applied for transfer the shares in his upon which a reply dated 28.03.2013 was received by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant wrote a letter to OP no.3 on 21.03.2016 regarding the transfer of the shares and in reply OP no.3 stated that his request is under process. Thereafter, complainant wrote various letters to OP no.3 regarding transfer of shares certificate but OP no.3 failed to do so. On 20.1.2022 complainant wrote a letter to OP no.3 to release the share certificate alongwith bonus shares/dividend funds in favour of complainant but OP no.3 did not care the same. Now complainant filed the present complaint on 27.05.2022.

4.             The question for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

5.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

 

6.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, last correspondence between the parties on 29.03.2016 and thereafter complainant wrote the letter to OP no.3 on 27.12.2021. During the period from the year 2016 to 2021 there was no correspondence between the parties. Complainant has alleged that he wrote many letters to OPs with regard to transfer of shares but complainant has not placed on record any such letters to fill up the lacunae. Meaning, thereby that the letter dated 27.12.2021 written by the complainant is just to create the fresh period of limitation for filing the present complaint. Moreover, on behalf of complainant there is neither separate application on the file to condone the delay nor any prayer for condonation in  the complaint. Besides it no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed

7.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation at the stage of admission. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 01.06.2022

                                                                 President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member