Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member

          This is an appeal filed by the original o.p. against the judgement & order dtd.08.02.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, in consumer complaint No.CC/07/320, allowing the complaint partly.

          Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

1.      Original complainant – Mukesh purchased 100 fully convertible debentures of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd (RPCL) on 7^th May 1991 which were converted into 400 equity shares. However, complainant neither received interest on debentures nor he received dividend on the converted shares.

2.      After merging of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd. into Reliance Industries Ltd., (RIL) shareholders were allotted shares of RIL in the ratio of 10:1. Accordingly, the complainant was issued 40 equity shares on 04.12.1992. However, since 1992 complainant neither received dividend on equity shares, nor he received bonus shares @ 1:1 which was declared in the year 1997.

3.      On 19.01.2006 while travelling on scooter complainant lost a bag, containing 40 shares of RIL alongwith other documents was lost. Accordingly, complainant lodged the complaint with Pratapnagar Police Station. Complainant also wrote to the o.p. No.2- Karvy Computer Shares (Pvt) Ltd., Hyderabd and requested for issuance of duplicate shares certificate and credit the interest / dividends due and payable to him. However, o.p.No.2 vide its letter dtd.09.02.2006 informed the complainant that the shares for which he was seeking duplicate shares were already sold in the year 2001 to somebody. In this regard, there was a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, claiming ownership of the shares. By the same letter o.p.No.2 informed the complainant that after verification of their record they observed that complainant had sold the shares in the year 2001 and the signature of complainant on Share Transfer Form, the signature on current letter was perfectly matched with the signature on record. Therefore, the request of complainant for issuance of duplication shares was denied. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.

4.      After hearing both the parties and perusing all the case papers, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowed the complaint, holding that the appellants are in deficiency in service.

5.      Being aggrieved by the judgement & order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur original o.ps. preferred the present appeal.

6.      Adv. Mr Adkar for the appellants and Adv. Mr J Vora for the respondent appeared.

7.      Adv. Mr. Mr Adkar  for the appellants vehemently argued that the case of complainant, claiming interest on debentures and that too for the period of 1991-92 cannot be entertained by the Fora after 15 years. However, it is further contended that the respondent could not establish fact by producing a single document that he has not received interest on debentures for the period of 1991-92.

8.      It is further strongly contended by Adv. Mr Adkar for the appellants that the interest on debentures was paid to all the debenture holders including the present respondent before the conversion of said shares. If the interest was not paid to the respondent for the year 1991-92 why the respondent remained silent from 1992 to 2007 and not made any complaint to the appellants. 

9.      It is further contended that the respondent in his complaint, as per his record, mentioned that the dividend for the year 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 was issued to the respondent was not encased. However, without considering this fact, the Forum granted the dividend to the respondent from 1991.

10.    The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the 40 shares were already sold by the respondent / complainant in the year 2001 and therefore, the question of issuing duplicate shares on its lost does not arise. On this point they ought not have been directed to issue duplicate certificate for the lost 40 shares. Accordingly, it is further submitted to set aside the impugned judgement & order.

11.    Per contra, Adv. Mr J Vora for the respondent contended that since the respondent, even after various correspondence, did not receive any interest on debentures and dividend on shares, he filed the complaint before the Forum and the Forum has rightly allowed the complaint partly and the same should be maintained.

12.    After hearing both the parties and perusing the record it is observed that on submission of respondent Forum had directed the appellant to produce Shares lodged for transfer by the alleged lodger R Taori, Transfer Form lodged by R Taori, Shares loded for transfer by the lodger Vighnahara Investment & Finance Co Pvt Ltd during the year 2001, Transfer Form lodged by the said Firm during the year 2001, the extract of register of the Share Holder against the Master Folio No.58678414 pertaining to the lost 40 shares, signature of respondent as per records of the appellants and details of dividends and interest paid from 1991 till 2001. However, though these documents were very much material, for deciding the case, appellants failed to produce before the Forum. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the appellants, before the Forum filed the Pursis expressing their inability to produce the same. Therefore, in our view, the Forum has rightly passed the impugned judgement & order, partly allowing the complaint and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in it.

14.    Accordingly, the appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.

i.        The appeal is dismissed

ii.       No order as to cost.

iii.      Copy of this order be furnished to the parties.