By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get back Rs.12,250/- entrusted to opposite parties company with cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- Opposite party No.1 is the agent of opposite party No.2 company. On 2010 January opposite party No.1 approached this complainant and compelled him to purchase shares from Bizarre Company. Opposite parties offered that they are going to start a supermarket at Sulthan Bathery in the year 2013, and if the complainant will purchase shares of Rs.12,250/- he will get discount card for Rs.5,500/- together with future benefit of discount for each and every purchase from their proposed supermarket. Attracted by this offer complainant paid Rs.12,250/- to the 1st opposite party on 27.03.2010 to purchase shares of opposite party No.2 company. Thereafter on 16.03.2011 the complainant received share certificate of Rs.2,000/- only. When complainant enquired about the balance share they offered that it will provide him later and Opposite parties assured that they will start supermarket on January 2013. For every enquiry opposite parties repeated same offers. On believing this the complainant waited till 2013. But opposite parties not started supermarket anywhere at Sulthan Bathery. Thereafter from the medias complainant noticed that opposite parties cheated thousand of people by giving same offers. According to the complainant, this is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 is the agent of the opposite party No.2 company, they together willfully done all these business tricks to gain money from the customers. Hence filed this complaint to get back the entrusted amount.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and they were appeared and filed version. In the version, Opposite party No.1 denied his role in the company and he stated that the complainant himself acted as an agent of the 2nd opposite party. Then he himself purchased shares from the company of opposite party No.2. But later police intervened in this matter and they stopped the activities of the Bizarre company. Subsequently as per the Order of the Honorable High Court under the responsibility of KELSA some settlement officers were appointed, now they are the authorized persons appointed by the Order of Honorable High Court to handle the matters relating to Bizarre. Again the opposite party No.1 stated that this petition before this Forum is not maintainable. This Forum have no jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the version, opposite party No.2 stated that this complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. They challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this matter. Opposite party No.2 further stated that they had no agent or employee anywhere in Wayanad District. The claim of the complainant in relation to his application for the shares of the company named M/s. BIZARRE Business Corporation Limited as per the records the complainant has remitted Rs.12,250/- in the company and he was allotted 2,000 number shares at Rs.1/- share value. Also complainant was allotted 11 privilege cards worth Rs.750/- and discount vouchers for worth Rs.5,500/-. Again they stated that the relationship between the complainant and this company is as share holder and company. The terms and dealings between a company and a share holder is governed by companies Act 1956 against the capital contributed by the complainant, due shares has been allotted to him as per the records maintained by the Registrar Of Companies (R.O.C) Thus the amount spent for shares became part of the permanent capital base of the Company. Again submitted that there is no provision in the Companies Act 1956 which enables individual share holders to claim refund of capital contributed by them. It is thus clear that the relationship between the share holder and the Company can never be construed as a service provider and a consumer. .It is further submitted that due to some untoward and unforeseen incidents, the Company was implicated in certain legal proceedings, based upon some misconceived and frivolous complaints during 2011-12. When the matter was brought to the consideration of the Honorable High Court of Kerala in W.P. (c) 6161/2013 and due to the intervention of the Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KELSA) an order was passed on 30.08.2013 in I.A No. 11115/2013 and thereby public notice has been caused calling for any claims against the Company. In pursuance of the said Order public notices were also published in all leading Dailies (including English and Malayalam Dailies). If the complainant had any sort of suspicion with respect to his fate of the Capital investment, as a share holder of the Company he could have opted the aforesaid proceedings before the Honorable High Court of Kerala, KELSA, and the Lok Adalath therein organized for the same. The averment and allegation in the complaint that the Company has not taken any measures to establish in S. Battery etc., are all false. As per the Company's decision and scheme the Company had purchased landed property in R S No. Block No. 18 in R S No. 525/9 in S. battery Village, Wayanad District in the year 2010 itself and when the construction process in the property was delayed due to technical reasons the Company had by 20th April 2011 itself taken on lease a premises in Sulthan Bathery. All the systematic and time bound business initiations of the Company were interrupted subsequently due to the aforementioned legal actions for which the Company is in no way responsible either in law or on facts. After having understood the position of the company and its policy many of the claimants entered appearance before the High Court of Kerala and before the KELSA later withdrawn their complaint and expressed their intention to continue the ownership in the Company. The present complaint is only experimental in nature initiated either as a result of misconception or mal-advise. Opposite party No.2 further stated that the complainant is not entitled to claim or get any amount from this respondent as claimed in the complaint.
5. On perusal of complaint, version and affidavit Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is to A3 documents were marked. Opposite parties are examined as OPW1 and OPW2 and documents were marked as Ext.B1 to B8. The produced documents shows that complainant is a share holder of the opposite party No.2 company. Order from the Honorable High Court dated 19.08.2014 is also produced. According to the direction of Honorable High Court the matter published in Mathrubhumi daily. All the evidences and records shows that High Court appointed settlement Authority to consider and settle the issues relating to the Bizarre matters. But this complainant not approached before proper authority in time. In the cross-examination both the parties admitted that complainant had entrusted Rs.12,250/- to purchase shares of opposite party No.2 company through 1st opposite party. On going through the submissions and record being a share holder complainant is not entitled to get back the capital. But all the parties admitted the remittance of the amount of Rs.12,250/- and opposite party No.2 submitted that police intervention and some unexpected incidents were happened and the company was impleaded to certain legal proceedings. Due to these situations opposite parties could not start the proposed supermarket at Bathery and the complainant also could not approach opposite parties in time to get back his amount, if that be so complainant is entitled to get back the deposited amount after deducting the share value with reasonable interest and compensation. Complainant produced share certificate for Rs.2,000/- only. In Ext.A1 it is clearly noted that number of shares 2000 “Equity shares each of Rs.1/- amount paid up per share Rs.1/-. Payment for Rs.12,250/- is admitted by both the opposite parties. Opposite party deposed that share certificate, discount voucher and privilege card produced before this Form is worth Rs.8,250/-. The balance amount of Rs.4,000/- company accepted as premium and the document for the same are with the company. But that was not produced before the Forum. Hence complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,250/- only, as a share holder of the company, complainant is not entitled to get back the share amount of Rs.2,000/-.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, he is entitled to get back the amount entrusted to opposite parties except the amount shown in the share certificate.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to return Rs.10,250/- (Ten Thousand and Two Fifty) with 10% interest to the complainant and also he is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost and compensation. If the complainant had any sort of suspicion with respect to his rate of capital investment, as a shareholder of the company he can approach the Honorable High Court of Kerala, KELSA and the Lok Adalath therein organized to settle the issues relating to Bizarre matters. Since the matter is still pending before Honorable High Court.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of May 2015.
Date of Filing: 31.08.2013. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Jalaja. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Vijayan @ Mani. Agriculture.
OPW2. Kunhimuhammed. Director, Bizzare Group.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Share Certificate. Dt:16.03.2011.
A2. Brochure.
A3(Series). Discount Vouchers (5 Nos).
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Rent Agreement.
B2. Copy of Assignment Deed.
B3. Copy of Stop Memo.
B4. Copy of High court Order. Dt:16.01.2014.
B5. Copy of Government Order. Dt:06.03.2012.
B6(Series). Copy of Account Details (9 Nos).
B7. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation.
B8. Copy of Certificate of Incorporation.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
