Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/575

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ritesh International - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 575 of 24.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   07.10.2015

 

Surjit Singh Oberoi, 27FF, HIG Flat, Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

Ritesh International Limited, 356, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana-141003.

..…Opposite party

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Surjit Singh Oberoi filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by claiming himself to be the holder of 400/500 shares under Folio No.504/S01143/64 with OP. However, Op despite repeated requests made in writing and by phone has not sent those shares without any cause. It is claimed that shares were allotted to the complainant many years ago and as such, Op has no right to keep the shares with them. Violation of provisions of Companies Act as such pleaded for seeking direction to the management to send the allotted shares to the complainant. Litigation expenses and compensation for torture of Rs.99,000/- sought by claiming that complainant is a senior citizen of 80 years of age.

2.       Arguments of complainant for the purpose of preliminary hearing were heard.

3.                 After going through the complaint, it is made out that no date regarding allotment of shares has been mentioned. Rather in Para no.4 of the complaint, it is claimed that 400/500 shares were allotted to the complainant many years ago.  If  shares were allotted many years ago, then certainly complaint being not filed within the stipulated period of 2 years, is barred by limitation in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.                Question of limitation being a question of law can be raised at any stage of the pending proceedings. In view of Section 24-Aof the Act, it is obligatory to decide that question of limitation first. Before dismissing the complaint as time barred, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24-A(2) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by showing that there is sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed time. This infact is the proposition of law laid down in case M/s State India Express (Registered) vs. M/s Ranoo Trol Limited-2014(1)CLT-8-9(N.C.). Complainant was asked during the course of preliminary hearing as to when shares were allotted to him, but he claimed that those was allotted many years ago and he is not aware about the date, month and year of such allotment. So, virtually complaint has been filed without disclosing the fact qua sufficiency of the cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of 2 years. As and when there is suppression of material facts like this, than equity demands that complaint should be dismissed.

5.                Moreover, dispute raised is for direction to OP to send 400/500 shares. As per law laid down in case Krishan Lal Kalra vs. Religate Securities Limited and others-II(2015)CPJ-338(N.C.),  activity of        regular trading in sale or purchase of share is purely commercial because the same carried out for earning profits,due to which,complainant concerned cannot be treated as a consumer. Complainant of this case claims to have purchased 400/500 shares, which shows the bulk purchase and as such, said purchase was for carrying on commercial activity. So,  complainant being not a consumer,  cannot be permitted to proceed with the complaint.

6.                As per law laid down in case Times Guarantee Financial Limited vs. Mrs.Snehal Prakash Gunkar-II(2015)CPJ-298(N.C.), in case of share transaction and settlement of account, the party concerned is not a consumer. In this case before us, the dispute raised for settlement of account by seeking direction to OP to send the allotted shares and as such, complainant is not a consumer. As complaint neither filed within the limitation and nor complainant is a consumer, so he cannot be permitted to proceed with the complaint.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint being not maintainable, is not admitted for further proceedings in the same. Copy of order be supplied     to the complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                                    (G.K.Dhir)

           Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

On 07.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma