D.o.F:7/1/2011

D.o.O:28/2/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC 11/2011

                     Dated this, the 28th day of February 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                               : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI           : MEMBER

Nirmala  Madhavan

W/o Madhavan  Malankad.

R/at Krishna Kripa, Opp.Post office,                  :  Complainant

Vidyanagar PO, Kasaragod.

(Adv.Krishnaraj Pundoor,Kasaragod)

Managing Director,

Kasaragod Gramina super Market Ltd.

Gulf Complex, Badiadka, Po. Perdala,

Kasaragod Dt.

(Exparte)

                                                   ORDER

      In nutshell the case of the complainant is as follows:

          Complainant applied for 150 shares worth `100/-per share by paying  ` 15000/- to opposite party  on 27/7/2009.  Complainant received the share certificate.  But on verifying the receipt and share certificate complainant came to know that the total  face value of the shares is ` 4000/- and the premium is ` 11000/-.  As per share certificate only 40 shares worth ` 100/- per share is allotted to the complainant and ` 11000/- was wrongly adjusted towards premium without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.  At the time of applying for the shares it was not disclosed to the complainant that she has to pay premium for shares.  The basis for collecting the premium is also not disclosed.  Had the complainant been made aware about the payment of premium then she should not have apply for shares by paying ` 15000/- for 40 shares.  The opposite party played unfair trade practice without mentioning the face value as well as premium while accepting the share application.  The opposite party is therefore liable to refund `15000/- collected from complainant.  Therefore the complaint.

2.  Notice to opposite party issued by registered post.  Though it is served on opposite party, they remained absent.  Hence opposite party had to be set exparte.

3.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of her claim.  Ext.A1 is the receipt evidencing the payment of `15000/- and Ext.A2 is the share certificate allotting 40 shares is produced and marked through complainant.  Counsel for the complainant heard.  Documents scrutinized.

4.   Complainant as PW1 in her proof affidavit has stated that believing the representation of opposite party that each share worth `1000/- and minimum 15 shares is to be purchased by one person, she applied for 15 shares   by paying `15000/- to opposite party on 27/7/2009.  Though in the complaint she had a case that she applied for 150 shares worth `100/- per share on the representation that minimum 150 shares has to be purchased by one person.  PW1 further stated in her affidavit that she did not open the cover containing the receipt and share certificate till 26/12/2010 believing that opposite party   has issued share certificate allotting 150 shares as promised.  But later on verifying the receipt and share certificate she came to know that it is separately shown as face value of the shares at ` 4000/- and premium `11000/- thus acknowledged receipt  of `15000/-.

  As there are discrepancies regarding the number of shares and the value of shares in complaint and affidavit we closely scrutinized Exts.A1&A2.  Ext.A1 is a receipt for payment of `15000/- in which face value and premium is separately shown as `4000/- and `11000/- respectively.  But it is pertinent to note that number of shares has not been mentioned in Ext.A1.  Ext.A2 is the share certificate for forty shares.  As per Ext.A2 equity shares each of `100/-.  This would show that the complainant has been allotted 40 shares worth `100/-.

  According to complainant had she  made aware about the fact of payment of premium then she would not have agreed to apply for and obtain the shares by paying `15000/- for 40 shares and the opposite party there by committed unfair trade practice.

  There is no explanation forth coming from the opposite party against the evidence rendered by the complainant.

   Therefore we hold that opposite party committed unfair trade practice and hence they are liable to refund the amount obtained from the complainant.

    In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to  refund `15000/- with interest @ 9 % from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of `3000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which opposite party shall be further liable to pay interest @12% for `15000/- from date of complaint to till date of payment.

Exts:

A1- receipt

A2- share certificate

PW1-Nirmala Madhavan-complainant

MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT

eva