Delhi

New Delhi

CC/601/2010

Raj Manchanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Karvy Computer Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/601/10                                                                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

1. SMT. RAJ MANCHANDA,

W/O SH.  G C MANCHANDA,

D-91, MAHENDRU ENCLAVE,

NEW DELHI.

2. SH.  G C MANCHANDA,

S/O LT. SH. C M MANCHANDA

D-91, MAHENDRU ENCLAVE,

NEW DELHI

     ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

KARVY COMPUTER PVT. LTD

105-108, FIRST FLOOR,

ARUNCHAL BUILDING,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-01

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K. Chaturvedi

The complaint of deficiency is against non issue of bonus shares certificate, split of share certificates of Rs.1/- and dividend on 36 shares of Rs.10/- held by complainant of the M/s. Jai Corporation Ltd.  It is alleged that in 2008, vide letter Exht.CW1/6 he demanded these, but got no reply and on intervention of SEBI, he was told on 5.9.2009, that complainant was not holding any shares after 2002 and was thus not entitled to conversion/bonus shares of the company. Therefore, this complaint.

The OP1 & OP2, filed a reply and evidence stating that in Feb.2002 the company has initiated a Scheme of Arrangement  in Bombay High Court in terms of Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, for cancellation of shares held in physical form in less than 100 shares except those who exercised their option to continue as shareholders and an option form was sent to shareholders and those who did not opt, their shares stood cancelled without request of surrender of share  certificates which thereafter became invalid and company had to pay Rs.35/- per equity share in term of clause 5.5 of the Scheme.  It is stated that on 18.9.2002, the payment of Rs.350/- and Rs.560/- for 36 shares held by complainant were sent by UPC, and the same were not returned and therefore, were deemed to be received by the Complainant.  Postal documents Ext.3 is placed on record.

The complainant in rejoinder has denied the notice of option being received by him as well as the payment @ Rs.35 per equity shares. 

We have considered the entire record and find that OP has not shown actual record of payment by OP to complainant against the payment sent by Ext.3 under postal certificate.  It has relied on number of judgments to say that complainant is not ‘Consumer’.  In our view, no doubt the scheme approved by High Court, is to be followed and cannot be questioned, nor this Forum can no behind this. Yet, complainant is entitled to actual payment as per scheme, to so that extent complaint of deficiency on the part of OP-1 & OP-2, as service providers is maintainable. We accordingly direct OP’s to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.9,10/- with 12% interest for 18.9.02 till payment and we also award Rs.5,000/- for compensation for deficiency and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 06.05.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                          MEMBER