Petitioner was the OP3 before the District Forum.

          Notice was issued to complainant/Respondent No.1, which was received back unserved.  Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for substituted service through publication.  Notice was ordered to be published in Indian Express (English) and Praja Shakti (Telugu) having circulation in Vishakhapatnam (place of last known address of Respondent No.1).  In spite of service by publication, she has not appeared.  Respondents No.2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.  All the respondents are ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Respondent/complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that he had handed over ITC share certificates consisting of 200 shares to Shri P.C. Shah (OP4) on 9.4.1998, who promised that he would sell the same and pay the proceeds of the shares to her.  Shri P.C. Shah informed her that he had sold the shares at the rate of Rs.802/- per share and sent two cheques in the sum of Rs.79,400/- each to the complainant after deducting the brokerage charges.  The cheques, on presentation, were returned with the remark ‘insufficient funds’.

          Petitioner, CIL Securities, was OP3 before the District Forum and PCS Securities Pvt.Ltd. were OPs 1,2 & 4.  Shri P.C. Shah (OP4) was the Director of PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. 

          Complainant thereafter proceeded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against PCS Securities Pvt.Ltd. 

After some time, she filed the present complaint arraying the petitioner along with PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. and is Director P.C. Shah, before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed all the opposite parties including the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 24% w.e.f. 27.5.1998 till its realization to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.  It may be stated here that OPs 1,2 & 4 did not contest the complaint and were proceeded ex parte.  It is the petitioner alone, who had contested the complaint.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner alone filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing that petitioner was a sister concern of OPs 1,2 & 4, which were arrayed as Respondents 2,3 & 4 before it.  Petitioner was held liable on the ground that it had given the acknowledgement of receipt of the shares.  The shares were received by one, Ms.Rupa, and the acknowledgement bears the stamp impression of the petitioner (Exh.A-1 at Pg.19 of the paper-book).  Contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Ms.Rupa was the employee of the PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. was not accepted.  State Commission came to the conclusion that petitioner was liable to compensate the complainant, as share certificates had been received by it.  It was held that the petitioner was a sister concern of PCS Securities as their offices were located in the same premises. 

Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, present Revision Petition has been filed.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that Ms.Rupa was not its employee; that, in fact, she was the employee of PCS Securities Pvt.Ltd.; that respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner was a sister concern of PCS Securities Pvt.Ltd.  Simply because the petitioner had its office in the same premises, does not prove/show that the petitioner was the sister concern of PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that Ms.Rupa was not its employee but we find intrinsic evidence from the record that it is not the petitioner who had sold the shares.  PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd., in Exh.A-2, have acknowledged that they sold 200 shares received from the respondent/complainant, which is duly supported by the two cheques issued by PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. in the sum of Rs.79,400/- each (Exh.A-3 and 4), which clearly show that it was PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd., which had received the shares and sold the same and issued the cheques which were dishonoured.  There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was the sister concern of PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. except that the acknowledgement receipt has the stamp of CIL Services Ltd., i.e., the petitioner.  There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had in any way dealt with the shares or sold the shares.  Evidence present on the record clearly indicates that it is PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. who sold the shares and remitted the amount by way of two cheques, which were dishonoured.

In the absence of any proof that the petitioner was in any way connected with PCS Securities Pvt. Ltd. or it had sold the shares, the petitioner could not be held liable for the deficiency in service.  Accordingly, the order passed by the fora below as against the petitioner is set aside.  However, the order against Respondents No.2 to 4 (OPs 1,2 & 4) is maintained.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it under the order of this Commission dated 17.4.2001 along with accrued interest thereon.