Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/102

KARVY COMPUTER SHARE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJEEV JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:30.11.2015

First Appeal- 102/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 21.12.2011 passed in Complainant Case No. 712/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi)

1. Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

Karvy House 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1,

Banjara Hills,

1.  

Andhra Pradesh.

 

2. Reliance Industries Ltd.,

Maker Chambers IV, 3^rd Floor,

222 Nariman Point,

1.  
2.  

Versus

Sh. Rajeev Jain,

S/o Mr. Shanti Prasad Jain,

R/o J-57, Ashok Vihar,

Delhi-110052.

                                                ….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 712/2010.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of appeal are as under:

The respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum.  A complaint was filed by him under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he is a registered holder of 100 equity shares of appellant No.2/OP No.2 i.e. RIL consisting of 50 base shares under Distinctive Nos. 297963384-433 vide Certificate No. 9678850 and 50 bonus shares under Distinctive Nos. 1277938748-797 vide Certificate No. 54197677.  The above 100 shares were under Folio No. 46082818 maintained by appellants/OPs in the name of respondent/complainant.  The appellant No.1/OP No.1 is a transfer agent of appellant No.2/OP No.2 and is responsible for handling requests for dematerialization of shares, payment of dividends declared by appellant No.2/OP No.2 and crediting bonus shares to the accounts of the registered holders etc.  It was alleged that the liability of the appellants/OPs towards the respondent/complainant was joint and several. The respondent/complainant had applied to appellant No.1/OP No.1  to convert the aforesaid shares in dematerialized form and also surrendered the original share certificates to appellant No.1 for the said purpose.  However, the appellant No.1 vide letter dated 29.12.2009 refused to dematerialize the shares and also retained the original share certificates by alleging that the shares mentioned above were subject matter of a suit i.e. Suit No.107/99 filed by one Shri M.S. Agarwal claiming ownership of the aforesaid shares along with other shares and as such the appellant was unable to dematerialize the said shares till the final disposal of the said suit.  It was alleged that the said suit was filed by Shri M.S. Agarwal, Prop. Of M/s. M.S. Agarwal & Co. against M/s. Somani Investors, Shri Sanjai Somani, both the appellants/OPs before the 3^rd Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Kanpur.  It was also alleged that an interim injunction dated 11.2.1999 was also passed in the aforesaid suit by the Civil Court of Kanpur.      

3. It was alleged that in response to above letter, the complainant served a legal notice to the appellant No.1/OP No.1 contradicting the stand of appellant No.1/OP No.1 in not dematerializing the shares in question.  A reply to the said notice was also given by the appellant No.1/OP No.1.  The complainant had alleged that he was not a party to the said suit, as such the appellant could not have refused to dematerialize the shares.  It was alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1/OP No.1 as it had failed to dematerialize the shares and also failed to pay dividends, bonus shares and rights offers.  Accordingly the respondent/complainant had filed complaint before the District Forum making prayer for dematerialization of 100 equity shares of aforesaid description and also sought directions for payment of dividends and bonus shares jointly and severally by appellants/OPs and also to pay compensation and damages.
4. The appellants contested the complaint case by filing joint written statement wherein the objection was raised that the respondent/complainant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Act, as such the District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  On merits it was admitted that the respondent/complainant was holding 100 shares of aforesaid description of appellant No.2/OP No.2.  It was alleged that 50 base shares were involved in a suit filed by one M.S. Agarwal before the civil judge, Kanpur and on 11.2.99 the civil court at Kanpur had passed an interim order restraining the appellants, who are defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the aforesaid suit, from registering any transfer of the disputed shares.  It was alleged that the shares in question were involved in a dispute which was pending final disposal, as such the request of dematerialization was turned down.  It was alleged that previously also the request of similar nature was turned down in the year 2001 and 2006 respectively.
5. Both the parties had led evidence before the District Forum by way of affidavits. Thereafter arguments were heard.  After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum had held that the respondent/complainant was a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the District Forum had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  The District Forum further held that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellants/OPs in not acceding to the request of respondent/complainant for dematerialization of shares.  Accordingly the District Forum had passed the following order:

“1. The OPs shall dematerialize 100 equity shares of M/s. Reliance industries Ltd. held by the complainant under Folio No.46082818 of distinctive numbers 297963384-433 and 1277938748-797 under certificates no.9678850 and 54197677 respectively and intimate the complainant after doing the same.

2.    OPs are directed to provide all the benefits to the complainant in respect of the above 100 shares to the complainant which had been provided to other equity share holders from the date complainant became a registered share holder of OP2 company in respect of above shares and if for any reason OPs are unable to provide the said benefits to the complainant the OPs are directed to pay money equivalent thereof to the complainant at the current market rates.

 

3.    The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant as well as for deficiency in providing service to the complainant along with litigation cost.

 

The above orders are joint as well as several against both the OPs.”

       

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.            
7. We may mention that no argument is made before us challenging the finding of Ld. District Forum on the point of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.  Any how we have gone through the finding of Ld. District Forum in this regard and find no illegality in the same.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant did not accede to the request of respondent for dematerialization  due to the pendency of aforesaid suit before Civil Judge, Kanpur wherein the shares of aforesaid description are also involved.  It is contended that the respondent/complainant ought to have intervened in the said suit so that the issue could have been sorted out.  It is submitted that due to the pendency of the civil suit, the appellant is unable to comply with the impugned order in as much as the matter is not yet finally adjudicated upon. 
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent is not a party in the aforesaid civil suit which is going on since 1999.  It is submitted that there is also no interim injunction order operating against the appellant issued by the court at Kanpur whereby the appellant has been restrained in any manner in dealing with the aforesaid shares.  It is submitted that pendency of the suit at Kanpur has nothing to do with the dematerialization of the shares of respondent by the appellant No.1.  It is further contended that shares of meager amount are involved.  It is contended that the impugned order is legal and valid and no interference is called for.
10. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 
11. It is admitted position that respondent/complainant is the registered owner of 100 equity shares of appellant No.2/OP No.2 i.e. Reliance Industries Ltd., the description of which has been given above.  It is admitted position that shares in physical form were sent to appellant No.1/OP No.1 for dematerialization and the request has been rejected by it on the ground that the aforesaid shares are subject matter of a suit filed by one Mr. M.S. Agarwal claiming ownership of the said shares.  The appellant has refused the request of dematerializing of the aforesaid shares till the final adjudication of the suit before the Civil Court at Kanpur.  It has also come on record that even prior to that, the request of the respondent to dematerialize has been rejected by the appellants.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/OPs has relied upon interim order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the IVth Civil Court, Kanpur in the aforesaid suit directing the appellants not to transfer the shares till the next date i.e. 4^th March, 1999.  Nothing is placed on record by appellants/OPs to show that said interim order continued thereafter. The stand of the respondent/complainant is that the aforesaid order did not continue thereafter.  Nothing contrary has been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. It is also admitted position that respondent/complainant is not a party in the aforesaid suit at Kanpur and no relief is claimed against him.  It is also admitted position that as per records of appellants/OPs, respondent/complainant is the registered owner of aforesaid shares.
13.   The number of shares involved in the aforesaid suit are 93400.  A decree declaring the plantiff therein as owner of 93400 shares is sought against M/s. Somani Investors and one Mr. Sanjai Somani.  Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant has also pointed out that in the written statement filed by appellants/OPs, in the aforesaid civil suit at Kanpur details of registered owners of shares involved have been given and prayer is made for impleading them as necessary parties.  Despite that no steps have been taken by plantiffs of the said suit.  The request of respondent/complainant is only for dematerializing of shares.  Further only meager number of shares of small amount are involved.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of the aforesaid suit wherein no interim stay is operating against appellants, is no ground for not acceding to the request of the respondent for dematerializing the shares.
14. In view of above discussion, no illegality or perversity is seen in the impugned order.
15. The appeal stands dismissed.
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)