O R D E R.

By Smt.  Bindu. R,  President:

CC No.209/2015

          This complaint is filed by  Raman,  Devi Nivas, Kalloor,  Nambyarkunnu (P.O),  Cheeral  against  Pratheesh. P.R and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation wherein the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.5,500/-  on 01.12.2010,  Rs. 5,500/- on 02.12.2010,  Rs.5,500/-   on 02.12.2010,  Rs.26,250/- on 23.12.2010 and  Rs.14,250/-  on 31.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after 8000 shares of 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1  was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.22,000/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.3,000/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid Rs.57,000/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.  But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return  Rs.57,000/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

CC No.190/2015

           This complaint  is   filed    by   Vishnu   Embranthiri,  Sreemandiram  House,

Mananthavady  Road, Nadavayal P.O,          Wayanad  against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.5,500/-  on 28.12.2010 and  Rs. 8,750/- on 23.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after  2000 shares of 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1  was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.5,500/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.750/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid Rs.14,250/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.            But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the Complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return  Rs.14,250/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

CC No.195/2015

          This complaint  is   filed    by   Krishnan. M.S, Sreemandhiram House, Mananthavady Road, Nadavayal (P.O),  Wayanad-670 721  against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.5,500/-  on 21.12.2010  and  Rs. 8,750/- on 23.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after 2000 shares  of 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1  was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.5,500/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.750/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid Rs.14,250/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.  But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return  Rs.14,250/-  with interest along with other reliefs.

CC No.196/2015

          This complaint  is   filed    by   Ramesh. N.R, Kalloor House, Nambyarkunnu P.O, Cheeral,  Wayanad  against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.5,500/-  on 31.12.2010 and  Rs. 8,750/- on 31.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after  2000 shares of 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1 was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.5,500/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.750/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid Rs.14,250/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.          But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return  Rs.14,250/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

CC No.197/2015

          This complaint  is   filed    by   Sunitha. R, Krishna Kripa House, Anjukunnu,  Varumalkadavu (P.O), Kalpetta against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.14,250/-  on 22.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after 2000 shares of the 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1 was sent to the Complainant on 28.02.2010.  According to the Complainant, she was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.5,550/-  and privilege  card by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if she  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant she had paid Rs.14,250/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.    But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return  Rs.14,250/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

CC No.198/2015

          This complaint  is   filed    by   Jayakrishnan. P.E,  Jayamanthiram House,  Kaniyambatta P.O, Panamaram,  Wayanad  against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.19,750/-  on 28.12.2010 and  Rs. 8,750/- on 30.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after  4000 shares of the 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1  was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.11,000/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.1,500/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid the amount  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by the 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.  But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the complaint praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to  return  Rs.28,500/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

          CC No.199/2015

This complaint  is   filed    by   Anand. M.N,     Sreemandhiram   House,

Mananthavady Road, Nadavayal,  Nadavayal P.O  against  Pratheesh. P.R  and  another alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant alleges that  1^st  Opposite Party is the canvassing agent of the business entity named Bezare Business Corporation where in the  2^nd  Opposite Party is the Chairman and the Managing Director.  The Complainant states that the 1^st  Opposite Party approached the Complainant in December 2010  for purchasing the Share,  Discount cards and privilege  cards of the  2^nd  Opposite Party business concern.  The Complainant believing  the words of the 1^st Opposite Party entrusted Rs.5,500/-  on 28.12.2010 and  Rs. 8,750/- on 28.12.2010  to the 1^st  Opposite  Party and there after 2000 shares of the 2^nd  Opposite Party of face value of Rs.1  was sent to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he was  provided with discount  card worth Rs.5,500/-  and privilege  card worth Rs.750/-  by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Parties assured that the  Complainant will get discount  if he  is purchasing  articles from the super market yet to be started at Sulthan Bathery by using  the discount and privilege cards.  According to the Complainant he had paid Rs.14,250/-  only upon the assurance given by the  1^st  Opposite Party.  It was also informed by 1^st  Opposite Party that super market will be started during January 2014  and the plot for construction is already purchased by the Opposite Parties.  But the Super Market was  not started by the Opposite Parties as assured and on enquiry  it was revealed that some litigations are pending and the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to wait for some time which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Complainant.  When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for  an  amicable settlement,  the Opposite Parties  received back the share certificates and the discount cards on 28.03.2014 after receiving  Rs.1,300/-  from the Complainant after issuing a receipt for the same.  But the Opposite Parties had not keep their words and till now the issue  is not solved which amounts to deficiency  of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and  hence the Complainant praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to  return  Rs.14,250/-  with interest along with other reliefs. 

2. Upon notice the Opposite Parties entered into  appearance and filed their separate  versions.

          3. 1^st  Opposite Party contented in their similar versions in all cases stating that the complaint is not maintainable  and is barred by limitation.  It is  the case of  1^st  Opposite Party that he had not received any amount from the Complainant and it is also contented that the  1^st  Opposite Party is also a share holder of 2^nd  Opposite Party.  It is contented by the 1^st  Opposite Party that on getting information about the settlement of claim through the Hon’ble  High Court of Kerala,  the Complainant approached the High Court  along  with 1^st  Opposite Party and since they are  interested in settling the matter and gave a power of attorney to the 1^st Opposite Party to appear in the matter.  Thus  1^st Opposite Party     contacted the company and the matter is pending before KELSA.  According to 1^st  Opposite Party,  he had not received any amount from the Complainants and there is no  consumer relationship between the Complainant and the  1^st  Opposite Party.  Hence  prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

          4. 2^nd  Opposite Party filed their similar versions in all cases stating that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer, under  the Consumer  Protection Act and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the  complaint.  According  to the 2^nd Opposite Party,  no agent or employee in Wayanad district by name Pratheesh and no person  has been enrolled as a share holder through 1^st  Opposite Party.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party admitted the  number of  shares of the Complainants in the company named M/s Bezare Business Corporation Ltd, Kaloor, Kochi.   But according to the 2^nd  Opposite Party,  the Petitioner had not paid the amount   as alleged in the complaint.  According to  2^nd  Opposite Party since the relationship between the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party is a share holder and the company,  the terms and dealings will be governed by the Companies Act 1956.   Against the capital  contributed by the Complainants, due  shares  has been allotted to them as per the records maintained by the  Registrar of Companies  and the amount spent for  shares became a part of the permanent capital base  of the company.  Since there is no provision in the Companies Act 1956 which enables individual share holders to claim refund of capital  contributed by them, and the relationship between the shareholder and  the company can never be construed  as a service provider and a consumer.  Since the Complainant is not a consumer, the question of deficiency of service does not arise and a share holder   cannot  approach the Commission without approaching a proper  Forum.  Due to some  untoward  and  unforeseen  incidents,  the Company was implicated in certain legal proceedings based upon some mis conceived and frivolous  complaints during 2011-12  and the matter was brought to the consideration of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 6161/13 and due to  the intervention of KELSA,  an order  was passed in IA 11115/13 on  30/08/2013 and thereby public notice has been caused calling for any claims against the company.  In pursuance of  the said order,  public notices were also published in all leading dailies.  Out of 77118 share holders,  23500 share holders had placed their claims for refund of the capital contribution and all are processed for settlement.  If the  Complainants had any suspicion with his fate of the capital investment  as a share holder of the company,  he could have opted the above said proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,  KELSA and  the Lok Adalath  therein  organized for the same.  It is submitted by the 2^nd  Opposite Party that the company on its decision and scheme had  purchased landed property in Block No.18 in RS No.525/9 of Sulthan Bathery Village Wayanad District in the year 2010  itself  and when the construction  process were delayed, the company had taken a premises on lease in Sulthan Bathery  on 20.04.2011.   2^nd Opposite Party says that due to the  afore mentioned legal action the business initiation were interrupted for which the company is not responsible.  After knowing the position of the Company many of the  claimants entered into appearance before the Hon’ble  High Court of Kerala, KELSA and later withdrawn  their complaint and expressed their intention to continue the ownership in the  Company.  There is no bonafides in the  present complaints which are  frivolous and vexatious and prayed for dismissal of the complaints with compensatory costs.   

          5. In this  case joint trial was allowed  with reference to Seven cases viz               CC 190/2015,  CC 195/2015, CC 196/2015, CC 197/2015, CC 198/2015,                 CC 199/2015 and CC 209/2015 as per  IA 390/2015 in CC 190/2015.

          6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

          7. Considering CC 209/2015 as leading  case,  Evidence was taken in the said complaint.

          8. Evidence consists of the  oral evidence of PW1 the Complainant in             CC 209/2015 and  Ext.A1 to A21 were marked  subject to proof since the documents are photocopies except Ext.A3   from  the side of the Complainant. OPW1 was examined from the side of Opposite Party and Ext.A22  and Ext.A23 were marked through OPW1.

          9. The following are the questions to be analysed  in this case.

1.  Whether the complaint is  maintainable  before the Commission?
2. Whether the Complainants had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair  trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties?
3. If so the compensation costs for which the Complainants are entitled to get?

          10. The  specific case of the Complainant is that through  1^st  Opposite Party, the agent of  2^nd  Opposite Party, the Complainant took shares of  2^nd  Opposite Party company.  But 2^nd  Opposite Party had not started the super market in time as informed to the Complainant,  which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.  During cross examination,  the Complainant  deposed that “1þmw  FXr-I£n  {]Xojv Fsâ  AbÂhm-kn-bmWv   1þmw  FXr-I£n   2þmw  FXr-I-£n-bpsS GPtâm DtZ-ym-K-Øt\m BWv F¶v ImWn-¡p-¶-Xn-\p-ff tcJ-IÄ H¶pw I­n-«n-Ã.  1þmw  FXr-I£n     meeting arrange sN¿mdp­v AXn   MD ]s¦-Sp-¯n-cp-¶p.   Rm³ Hcp  cq] value Dff 8000   shares  Rm³ FSp-¯n-«p-­v.  AXnsâ   share certificates  1þmw  FXr-I£n  sslt¡m-S-Xn-bn tIkp­v ]Ww hm§n-¯cmw F¶p ]dªv hm§n-t¸mbn AXn-\mbn t]¸-dn H¸n«v sImSp-¯n-«p-­v.  Nnehv ss]k-bmbn FÃm-hcpw IqSn 1,300/þ  cq]bpw sImSp-¯n-«p­v power of attorney   \ÂIn-bn-«p-­v.  Power of attorney  Rm³  CXp-hsc cancel  sNbvXn-«n-Ã.  Notary ap¼msI H¸n-«-Xm-Wv”.  He further  deposed that “privilege card   ChnsS lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«p-­v.  Discount card Pratheesh   hm§n-¨p.  Ext.A1 and A2  series    AS-¡-ap-ff tcJ-I-fpsS  original {]Xo-jnsâ ssIh-i-am-Wv”.

11.  During cross examination, OPW1  deposed that “\ne-hn  C´-y-bn  Fhn-sSbpw I¼-\n-bpsS  Super market {]hÀ¯n-¡p-¶n-Ã. ImcWw tImSXn  stay DÅ-Xn-\m-em-Wv.  OPW1 also deposed that “1þmw FXr-I£n bmsXmcp dm¦nepw s]« Bf-Ã.  I¼-\n¡v GI-tZiw 77000 sjbÀ holders D­v.  I¼-\n¡v FXnsc {Inan-\     tIkv D­v.  I¼-\n-bn  Dff 7 t]À BWv tIÊn {]Xn-I-fmbn  sPbnen t]mb-Xv.  AXn 1þmw  FXr-I£nbpw D­v”.  Witness also deposed that “High Court  tIkn I£n-bm-I-W-sa-¦n Hdn-Pn-\  share certificate AhnsS \ÂIWw.  \mfn-Xp-h-sc-bmbn Hcp BÄ¡pw ]Ww XncnsI sImSp-¯n-«n-Ô.

       12. The  Opposite Party submitted that the company filed WP(c ) No.6161/13 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was considered along with other connected matters  on 24.03.2017  and found that “Taking  note of the respective  submissions made across the Bar,  and  the peremptory provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Sec. 8,  I am of the considered opinion that the Director of Directorate of Enforcement or any officer authorized by him is duty bound to take possession of the property attached under sub-section (5) or frozen under sub-section (1A) of Sec.17.  Since a statutory duty is cast upon the said authority, I think it is only appropriate that the said authority is allowed to take possession of the amounts remaining  with the Banks concerned.  However,  the said amounts shall be retained in separate deposits in accordance with law.  It is also made clear that, in the event of the authority under the PML Act, 2002 is directed to produce necessary records in accordance  with such properties by any court of law in respect of the crime registered against the companies,  necessary arrangements shall be made to comply with such directions.  I also make it clear  that the claimants are free and at liberty to make suitable claims before the  Special Court,  under the provisions of the PML Act,  2002 and in accordance with law”.   Hence according to the 2^nd Opposite Party the Complainants have to  approach the Special Court for the redressal of their grievances. 

13. In this case the specific case of the Complainant is that the originals of the share certificate are given to 1^st  Opposite Party and during cross examination OPW1 deposed that  1^st  Opposite Party is also arrested and he is in jail along with others.  It is  also deposed  by OPW1 that original share certificate is to be given to settle the claim.   There is no provision in Consumer Protection Act 1986 enabling the Consumer Commission to  interfere or to issue  a direction  or relief as sought for by the Complainant in this regard.

14.  Circumstances being so,  this Commission finds that the complaints are not maintainable before the Commission and the Complainants have to approach appropriate Court of Law for getting  redressal of their grievances.    Hence point No.1 is found against the Complainants and therefore  the complaints are dismissed.

Pending applications if any are closed.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  16^th  day of August 2024.

Date of filing: CC/190/2015 -30.06.2015, CC/195/2015 -30.06.2015,                    

                        CC/196/2015 -30.06.2015,  CC/197/2015 -30.06.2015,

                        CC/198/2015 -01.07.2015, CC/199/2015 -30.06.2015,

                       CC/209/2015- 01.07.2015.

                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                                                                                 MEMBER   :    Sd/-

                                                                                                                                MEMBER    :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainants:

PW1.            N. Raman.                             Agriculture. 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Arun. V.R.                               Sales Manager,  Kerala  Agro Foods Ltd,

                                                                   Ernakulam.

Exhibits for the Complainants:

A1(1) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:01.12.2010.

A1(2) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.                      dt:02.12.2010.

A1(3) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:08.12.2010.

A1(4) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:23.12.2010.

A1(5) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:23.12.2010.

A1(6) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:23.12.2010.

A1(7) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:31.12.2010.

A1(8) (Subject to proof)                     Copy of Receipt.                      dt:31.12.2010.

A2(1) (Subject to proof)                    Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A2(2) (Subject to proof)                    Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A2(3) (Subject to proof)                    Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A2(4) (Subject to proof)                    Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A3(1)          Privilege Card.

A3(2)          Privilege Card.

A3(3)          Privilege Card.

A3(4)          Privilege Card.

A4(1) (Subject to proof)            Copy of Receipt.           dt:23.12.2010.

A4(2) (Subject to proof)            Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A5 (Subject to proof)               Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A6.    Privilege Card.

A7(1) (Subject to proof)            Copy of Receipt.           dt:23.12.2010.

A7(2) (Subject to proof)            Copy of Receipt.           dt:21.12.2010.

A8.  (Subject to proof)             Copy of Discount Voucher.

A9.    Privilege Card.

A10(1) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:31.12.2010.

A10(2) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:31.12.2010.

A11 (Subject to proof)             Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A12.  Privilege Card.

A13(1) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A13(2) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A14.  (Subject to proof)           Copy of Discount Voucher.

A15.    Privilege Card.

A16(1)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A16(2)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A16(3)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A16(4)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of Receipt.           dt:30.12.2010.

A17(1)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A17(2)  (Subject to proof)         Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A18(1).         Privilege Card.

A18(2)          Privilege Card.

A19(1) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A19(2) (Subject to proof)          Copy of Receipt.           dt:28.12.2010.

A20 (Subject to proof)             Copy of  Discount Voucher.

A21.            Privilege Card.

A22.             Brochure.

A23.           Magazine               

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.       

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                 MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                                                 MEMBER    :   Sd/-