Order No. 34 dated 16/03/2017
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants purchased equity shares for their personal benefits from o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the complainants were sent the dividend in the month of Oct. 1995 in the complainants’ name. But o.p. nos.1 and 2 failed to send share certificates in the name of the complainants. As per buy back policy o.p. nos.1 and 2 accepted the share but failed to repayment the amount in favour of the complainants. The o.p. no.1 wrote a letter to the complainants on 16.7.08 and informed that the aforesaid shares were transferred to one Acquirer Company on 29.7.03 but o.ps. failed to repayment the amount for the transferred shares to the complainants. The complainants further stated that the o.ps. accepted the shares of the complainant but did not take any action to send any amount in the name of the complainants. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and for other reliefs.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complaint case is not maintainable as per Sec 2(1) (C) of C.P. Act. As the o.p. nos.1 and 2 discharged their obligation diligently specifically on 7.1.04 when the buy back warranty was dispatched and therefore there is no relationship of consumer and service provider existed. The complaint filed the complainants is barred by limitation. The complainant submitted the share certificates of the year 2003 and the buy back amount was returned to the complainants on 29.7.03. Thereafter the complainants kept silent about four years. The present complaint was filed in the year 2012 after more than several years passing of limitation period and accordingly the case is barred by limitation. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the case was filed within the period of limitation.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainants purchased equity shares for the personal benefits from o.ps. The o.p. no.3 sent dividend in the month of Oct. 1995. The o.p. no.1 sent dividend to the complainants but o.p. nos.1 and 2 failed to send the share certificates to the complainants for which the complainants had to write several letters but no action was taken for which the complainants filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the case is barred by limitation and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The complainants filed this case without having any cogent reason whatsoever, as such, the case is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties that o.ps. had come out with a buy back offer and the complainants then accepted the offer and sold the entire holding to Carrier Mauritius Ltd. and the warranties were dispatched on 29.7.03 for Rs.30,000/- for each folio. It appears from the record that the complainant lodged a complaint before the SEBI but no action was taken from their end. It appears from the materials on record that the entire transaction took place in the year 2003 and after the lapse of several years particularly after the period of limitation this case was filed by the complainants, therefore the case is not maintainable. Apart from the said fact the complainants did not file any petition u/s 24A of C.P. Act praying for condonation of delay. Since the complainants are in the habit of commercial activity anad trading regularly in share business, therefore the purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profit. Activity being purely commercial one is not covered under the term of consumer. In view of the facts and circumstances we hold that the case is not maintainable and the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.65/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
