Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/280/2011

Mrs.Jasmine Anand w/o.Jugminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Registrar,Integrated Enterprises Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Anand

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No… 280  of 2011.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 31.03.2011

                                                                                               Date of decision: 09.12.2016.

Mrs. Jasmine Anand aged about 36 years wife of Shri Jugminder Singh Anand, Advocate, reisden tof Kothi No. 124-B/R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Registrar, Integrated Enterprises (India) Ltd. , Second Floor “ Kences Towers” 1, Remakrishna Street, North Usman road, T Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
2. State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, Mysore Bank Circle, Kempegowda Road, Banglore 560254 through its Chairman.
3. Professional Courier, Workshop Road, near Gulati Steel Sheets, Yamuna Nagar through its Incharge.                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. J.S.Anand, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2 

               Respondent No.1 & 3 already ex-parte.

             

 

ORDER

1                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 amended up to date.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant was holding 50 equity shares of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.2 company). The OP No.2 company had floated rights issue in respect of those shares and accordingly, the complainant was entitled to get 15 shares under the right issue. Accordingly, the complainant applied for issue of the right shares and sent the same through OP No.3 courier on 23.09.2010, which was received in the office of Op No.1 on 27.09.2010 and the last date was 29.09.2010. In this way, the application of the complainant was received well before the last date fixed in this regard. However, the complainant was surprised when she received back the application with the remarks that it was  being returned as it was received after issue closure date. The said application was deposited on 01.10.2010. This is absolutely wrong and against the factual position because as per acknowledgement due received by the complainant, the application was received in the office of OP No.1 on 27.09.2010 well before the last date fixed. A legal notice dated 10.10.2010 was also issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 explaining the above noted position and calling upon them to issue 15 right shares in the name of complainant but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs No.1 & 2 to issue 15 right shares and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No. 1 & 3 failed to appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2013 and 07.10.2014 respectively.

4.                     OP No. 2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and on merit it has been stated that some facts of the complaint are twisted. In fact, Op No.1 has informed the Op No.2 that M/s Sky Lark Express had delivered the cover note No. 139111 to them containing the application form of Smt. Jasmin Anand ( complainant) on 30.09.2010 whereas the closing date was 29.09.2010, therefore, the application of the complainant was not considered and was sent back. It has been further mentioned that Op No.2 has also sent the reply to the legal notice issued by Sh. Jasminder Singh Anand Advocate vide letter dated 28.10.2010. Lastly, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP 2 and requested for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of application as Annexure C-1, photo copy of cheque as Annexure C-2, photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of courier receipt dated 23.09.2010 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of e-mail as Annexure C-5, Photo copies of letters as Annexure C-6 and C-8 wrongly mentioned as C-8 instead of C-7.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sri Adwin J.D’Souza Chief Manager, as Annexure RW2/A and documents such as photo copy of legal notice as Annexure R2/1, Copy of e-mail as Annexure R2/2, copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure R2/3, copy of cover details view as Annexure R2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that complainant was entitled to get 15 shares under the right issue scheme floated by OP No.2 Bank and accordingly she applied for the same and sent the application through courier on 23.09.2010 which was received in the office of Op No.1 on 27.09.2010 but no right shares have been issued by the OP No.1 and 2 which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the application Annexure C-1 and photo copy of cheque dated 18.09.2010 in the shape of application money as Annexure C-2 and courier receipt dated 23.09.2010 as Annexure C-4 and argued that the complainant sent her application in time which was received by the OP No.1 on 27.09.2010 but inspite that no right shares were allotted to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the legal notice Annexure C-3 and other letters and e-mails and lastly requested for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 hotly argued at length that this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that complainant has concocted a false story in fact the application of the complainant was received on 30.09.2010 whereas the closure date was 29.09.2010 as the application of the complainant was received after closing the date, hence the same was returned to the complainant. Learned counsel for the Op No.2 further draw our attention towards the e-mail Annexure R2/2 and reply of the legal notice Annexure R2/3 and also draw our attention towards the cover detail view Annexure R2/4 and argued that from the Annexure R2/4 cover detail view it is duly evident that application was received on 30.09.2010 in the office of Op No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further draw our attention towards the application Annexure C-1 and argued that on the application itself it is duly evident that it was received on 30.09.2010 as it bears the stamp of the OP No.1 with date. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove her case that her application was received on 27.09.2010 as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. Furthermore, the complainant has also not placed on file any affidavit of the delivery agency of the courier of POD of courier (receipt of courier by the OP No.1) in support of her version that the application in question was received by the OP No.1 on 27.09.2010. From the other angle also, the complainant has not placed on file any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant has suffered any loss due to non-issuance of right shares. From the contents of the complaint, it is also duly evident that complainant had invested her money for earning profit which also does not come under the definition of Consumer as neither any defect in the goods nor any deficiency in service has been alleged by complainant in her pleading. Further, this is a dispute between both the parties only for sale and purchase of the shares, hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.                   After going through the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer and the matter in dispute may be of Civil nature.

12                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 09.12.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F. YNR. at Jagadhri.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.