Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1171/2010

Suparna Surana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Citi Bank - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT.

NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.1171/2010                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

            Ms. Suparna Surana

           W/o Sh. Sanjay Surana,

           Flat No.6 IIIrd Floor,

           Mahalaxmi Market,

           Bhagirath Place, Delhi-06.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Citi Bank,

Tower Victoria, 11^th Floor,

45 GN Chetty Road,

Chennai-600017.

 

Also at:-

Jeewan Bharti Building,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      M/s Serve International Ltd.,

AAFA/Demat Operations,

Tower Victoria, 2^nd Floor,

45, G.N. Chetty Road,

T-Nagar, Chennai-600017.

 

3.     Arihant Industries Ltd.,

B-35, Ph.V, Focal Point, Ludhiana.

                      Opposite Parties

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  had 1000 shares of total amounting to Rs.10,000/- of OP-3.  OP-3 has issued 20 shares to the complainant.  The complainant had demat account with OP-1 bearing No.10308885.  On 19.2.2001, the complainant lodged her 1000 shares for demat with OP-1 and the same were duly acknowledged by OP-1.  After receiving the shares certificates for the purpose of demat, OP-1 & 2 failed to credit the said shares in the account of the complainant. 

2.     Despite repeated requests, both the OPs failed to give the credits of shares entrusted to them for demat in her account.  As a result of undue delay, the complaint lost several opportunities to disposed off the said shares but the same could not be disposed off as the shares were not credited in her accounts. Hence, the complainant suffered huge loss of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.  The complainant wrote letter to OP-1 asking it to compensate her for the loss suffered for their inactions of not crediting the shares in her demat account.  But OP-1 neither returned the shares nor had credited the same.  Nothing has been done by the OP to resolve the issue in terms of the complaint and notices served upon it, hence this complaint.  

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP-1. In its reply OP-1 stated that the present complainant is not maintainable being false, frivolous, baseless misconceived.  The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts.  It is stated that Demat account No.10308885  was opened in the name of complainant by the OP and it has received 1000 shares for dematerialisation in 2001. The same were processed by OP and after processing, the OPs had sent them to the Registrar on 22.2.2001.  OP-1 has stated that the procedure in case of conversion of physical share into demat shares is that the registrar would co-ordinate with the company in converting the physical shares in demat mode. OP has made various attempts to contact the registrar, however, the registrar has confirmed discontinuation of services for the specified company, hence, they were unable to help with any details.

4.     As the company is a sick unit, the dematerialisation is still pending.  Moreover, the OP  also tried to contact SEBI/NSDL but the same has also expressed it inability to assist in the present case.  It is also submitted on behalf of   OP that OP is merely a depository participant and there was no delay in processing the request at the end of OP and delay has been caused by the company, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP-1.  It is further stated that there is no deficiency of services or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

5.     The complainant and OP-1 have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

6.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.  Perusal of the file shows that the present dispute is related to non-transfer of shares in the demat account of the complainant by OP-1, which pertains to the year 2007.     

 

 As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

1. The District Forum, 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 subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , 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 National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

8.     On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC – in that case in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.

9.     In the present complaint the complainant has herself admitted at Para No.8 of the complaint that  non-transfer of shares in the demat account of the complainant by OP-1 firstly arose in  the year 2000, thereafter, despite several communication, OP-1   failed to resolve the issue.  Vide letter dt. 21.9.2007, OP-1 had clarified that delay in dematerialisation of the shares in question is on the part of OP-3 and not on behalf of OP-1 and further requested the complainant to approach SEBI for further assistance, hence, in our view the cause of action for filing the present complaint against OP-1 arose on 21.9.2007. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 29/09/2010 i.e.  beyond the period of two years of the accrual cause of action.

 

10.   In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above,  we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is barred by limitation. We find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on  09/07/2019.

 

      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)

MEMBER