Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

375/2011

P.Shanmugasundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Karvy Computershare Pvt Ltd & Other - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Chandrasekaran

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing :   05.12.2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   05.08.2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                   : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.375/2011

 

WEDNESDAY THIS 5^TH  DAY OF AUGUST 2015

P. Shanmugasundaram,

S/o. Paramasivam,

Flat No.D,

Chandrasekaran Apartments,

120-D, Rajamannar Salai,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.                                          ..Complainant

                                                 ..Vs..

1.  M/s. Karvy Computershare Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman,

Plot NO.17 to 24,

Vithal Rao Nagar,

Madhapur,

Hyderabad 500 812.

 

2. C.Parthasarthy,

Chairman,

M/s. Karvy Computer share Private Ltd.,

Regd. Office Karvy House 46,

4^th Avenue, 1^st Street,

Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad 500 034.

 

3. M/s. Karvy Computer share Private Ltd.,

Branch Office, Rep. by its Manager,

G-1, Swat Apartments,

22, Vijaya Raghava Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai.                                  .. Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant             :  M/s. C.R. Chandrasekaran & another      

 

For the Opposite parties       :  M/s. K. Rajasekaran & others.

  

 

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to hand over the transferred share certificate  and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation  and also to pay a sum of  Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.      

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT        

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

 

        The complainant gave the share certificate bearing No.BBE187275 to the 3^rd opposite party on 20.4.2009 to be forwarded to the 1^st opposite party which was in his name jointly with his son namely Mr.S.Srinivasan for being transferred in his name.   This certificate was duly received by the 1^st opposite party on 30.4.2009 wherein the 1^st opposite party called upon the complainant to execute on affidavit  as per enclosure thereto as the sellers along with his son, duly attested by bank manager with S.B. account number, and attested copy of the pan card and address proof of the sellers and buyers filling of consideration amount and payment of Rs.12.50 being the stamp duty required.  

 

2.     Further the 1^st opposite party has stated that in the absence of any valid objection as to transfer of these shares the 1^st opposite party would proceed to transfer the subject share without any further information to his son.   The complainant wrote a letter  to the 1^st opposite party on 31.5.2010 that he did not receive the securities, i.e the share certificate after their having been transferred in his name and he wanted to know from them as to in what manner the share so transferred in his name were sent to him.  The 1^st opposite party had send a  reply letter dated 9.6.2010 that the share certificate duly transferred in the name of the complainant  had already been dispatched to the address of the complainant by registered post on 20.10.09 and the same has not been returned to them undelivered by the Postal Authorities.     Accordingly the complainant had to issue a legal notice on 25.1.2011 for which he received through the lawyer from the 1^st opposite party by email a letter dated 21^st March 2011 making many averments which are not based on facts but not touching on the matter pertaining to their purporting to have sent to the complainant the share certificate after transfer.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.    Hence the complaint.      

Written version of  opposite parties  is  as follows:-

3.      It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties stated that the grievance of the complainant is that he had applied for transfer of shares of his name individually, which are in the joint holding with his son and that the transferred share certificates have not been received by him for which he has filed this complaint and has claimed various reliefs and it is proposed to be shown that the complaint is untenable and an abuse of the process of law.   In fact the allegations clearly underlines the intention of the complainant is doing business in the share market, make investments to earn profits and as such the business activity disputes cannot come under consumer disputes act.   As such the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant.    Opposite parties have filed their proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

 

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

6. POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Perused the complaint filed by the complainant,  written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavit of both parties  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 filed on the side of the complainant and the documents Ex.B2 to Ex.B9  filed on the side of the opposite parties  and considered the both side arguments.  There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has sent share certificate to the opposite parties for change of the said share certificate from the joint name of complainant and his son to his own name.  The receipt of the said certificate by the opposite parties is also not denied.  On the other hand the opposite  parties contention is after duly complying transferred of names in the said certificate they were sent to the complainant to his address through post and the same were not delivered to the complainant nor returned to them by the Postal Department.   Whereas the complainant has raised grievance that the opposite parties would have taken proper steps against the Postal Department and to trace out the said original share certificate and should have been handed over to the complainant in proper manner, since the opposite parties have failed to do so, they have committed deficiency of service and claims and reliefs against the opposite parties as mentioned in the complaint seeking return of the original share certificate as well as compensation.

7.     However the opposite parties have resisted the complaint filed by the complainant with serious contention that since the dispute mentioned in the complaint is relate to “Trading of share” and the complainant being the business man doing selling and purchase of shares he is not considered to be a consumer as per Sec. per Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    As such the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

8.     For this contention the learned counsel for the opposite parties have cited the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi order passed in the case of

DR. V.K. AGARWAL

.VS..

M/S. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

Dated 24.7.2012 where it was held that

      “Sell and purchase of the share are commercial transactions when respect of the said dispute.”

The complaint  filed by the share holder is not a consumer as per  Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    The copy of the portion of the said Judgment is filed as Ex.B10 on the side of the opposite parties.  On perusal of   the said orders the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have held that  person who is doing purchase and selling of shares is not a consumer the dispute arised out of the said business transaction as such the complaint is not maintainable under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

9.      Therefore the complaint mentioned dispute is in respect of the trading of share and the complainant is doing purchase and selling of share business the complaint mentioned dispute raised by the complainant against the opposite parties is relating to business transaction which is excluded under the purview of the under section  2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    As such the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as contented by the opposite parties is acceptable. 

10.    Therefore we are of the considered view that this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances the parties have to bear their own cost of litigation.  Further  this order will not debar the complainant to seek remedy in any other appropriate forum, as per law  and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.    

 Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  5^th   day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 30.4.2009      - Copy of the letter of the opposite party.

Ex.A2-                              - Copy of the share transfer from.

Ex.A3-                    -        - Copy of the share certificate.

Ex.A4- 14.8.2009      - Copy of the letter of the 2^nd opposite party endorsed to the

                               Complainant.

Ex.A5- 31.5.2010      - Copy of the letter to the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A6- 9.6.2010        - Copy of the letter from the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A7- 9.7.2010        - Copy of the letter of complainant to 1st opposite party.

Ex.A8-                    -        - Copy of the letter to the Dept. of Postal.

Ex.A9-  25.1.2011     - Copy of the legal notice.

Ex.A10- 21.3.2011     - Copy of the reply notice of 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A11- 31.5.2010     - Copy of the compliant to the 1^st opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    

 

Ex.B1-           -                 - Copy of Supreme Court Judgment with regard to jurisdiction.

Ex.B2-                    -        - Copy of Extract of Annual report of bank of Baroda.

Ex.B3- 31.5.2010      - Copy of the complainant letter.

Ex.B4- 9.6.2010        - Copy of the reply letter by opposite party.

Ex.B5- 21.3.2011      - Copy of the reply letter by opposite party for legal notice.

Ex.B6- 9.7.2010        - Copy of the complainant letter.

Ex.B7- 29.7.2010      - Copy of the reply letter by the opposite party.

Ex.B8- 28.3.2011      - Copy of the compliant  letter sent to Postal Authorities.

Ex.B9-           -        - Copy of the Extract of the Postal Guide under Clause(ii).

Ex.B10- 24.7.2012     - Copy of National Commission order.

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.