Delhi

New Delhi

CC/76/2006

Satish Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Secretary Maruti Udyog Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.C.C./76/2006                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI SATISH MITTAL,

Proprietor,

Jyoti Krishi Bhandar,

Jind Road,

Handsi-125003

          ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. THE SECRETARY

Ministry of Heavy Industries &

Public Enterprises,

Udyog Bhawan,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

11^th Floor, Jeevan Parkash Building,

25, K.G. Marg,

New delhi-110001.

 

3. MCS LTD.

Sri Venkatesh Bhawan,

212 A, Sahapur Jat,

New Delhi

 

4. KARVY COMPUTER SHARES (P) LTD.

Karvy House,

46, Avenue Street No.1,

Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad-500034

ALSO AT :

 

105-108,

Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

       .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

 

The case of the complainant is that, he had applied for 1000 shares Shares of Op no. 2 through OP no.1 and had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- being the value of said shares vide Bid application no. B5095404. It is alleged by the complainant that only 350 shares were allotted to him and after deducting a sum of Rs. 43,750 /-, the remaining amount of Rs.81,250/- was refunded back to the complainant vide CAN no. 00030244 dt. 04.07.2003. It is alleged by the complainant that, in the month of Feb, 2004 , when he checked his De -mat Account , he came to know that only 50 shares has been transferred to his account instead of 350 shares, and as such vide his letter dt. 21.02.2004 addressed to OP NO.3, informed it about the irregularities and requested it to credit/allot the remaining 300 shared to his account.

          It is further alleged by the complainant that OP no. 3, vide its letter dt. 29.01.2005 informed him that all the 350 shares has been credited to his account. But , when the complainant visited the office of OP no.3 on 15.02.2005 he found that no shares has been credited to his account , on asking the reason, it was informed to him that OPno.3  is no more the Registrar of OP no. 1 to issue its shares and the entire record was transferred to OP no. 4 . As such complainant approached OP no. 4 and informed them about the irregularities, but no action had been taken in the matter. Due to non-redressal of grievance by Ops , complainant sent  legal notice dt. 19.11.2005 to the Ops , but all in vain. Complainant therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of his grievance.

          At the initial stage of the complaint, complainant had moved an application for amendment in the compliant and the same was allowed by this Forum. In his amended complaint complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. Direct the OPs to remove the deficiency in service by transferring the balance 300 shares of Maruti Udyog Ltd. in Demat Account No. DPID 12011401 CLID 00027241 of the complainant.
2. Direct the OPs to remove deficiency in services by way of payng compensation in lieu of said 300 shares amounting to Rs. 1,98,060/- (being the market value of the said 300 shares as on date) to the complainant.
3. Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
4. Direct the OPs parties to pay interest (pendentilite and future) also on the due amount to the complainant @ 24% p.a.
5. Pass such other and/or further order, as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Notices of the complaint were sent to the Ops. Complaint has been contested by all the Ops, raising the preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable within the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complainant is not a “consumer “as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the C.P.Act. and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

All the parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits.

This case was reserved for order on 12.12.2013, but thereafter on account of change of learned Members of the Forum order could not be pronounced. The matter was posted for re-arguments on 24.05.2016. The arguments on behalf of the complainant was heard and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

          In order that the complaint filed before consumer fora is maintainable, the essential requirement is that the complaint should have been filed by a person , or on his behalf, who is, the consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. The complaint filed by or on behalf of a person who is not a consumer under the said provision of law, is not maintainable. Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act clearly shows that if the services are hired or availed of by the person concerned/complainant for any commercial purpose then the said person is not a consumer within the meaning of  Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act. However, by virtue of Explanation to Section 2 (d) if services are hired for commercial purpose and are exclusively for the purposes of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment then, still the person concerned availing such services is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d). However, in such a case, the complainant is required to allege these facts in the complaint. (See Asaithambi versus the company secretary and others Revision Petition. No. 1179 of 2012, decided by honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 1/8/2012..

          In the present case, the complainant in the complaint has alleged that that he had applied for purchasing 350 shares of OP2 through OP no 1 and the OP had allotted him only 50 shares. Undisputedly the purpose of investment was creation of wealth by way of sale, purchase of stocks and shares from time to time with the consent of both parties in terms of agreement executed between the parties. The transactions in stocks and shares are commercial purpose in the light of Asaithambi's case (supra). Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. The present complaint, is therefore, not maintainable before the consumer fora and complainant may seek redressal of his grievances elsewhere before competent forum/court as per law.  In this view of the matter, there is no need to go into the other arguments raised from both sides, as the same would not alter the fate of the complaint.

          In view of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed. Keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost of litigation. 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 the record room.

          Pronounced  in open Forum on                                    .

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                 (H M VYAS)

                                                    MEMBER                                              MEMBER