BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 22nd day of September, 2005
CD NO. 54/2005
Surabhi Ravindra Prasad,
R/o. H.No. 10-278, River Street,
Tadipatri. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd,
210, 2nd floor, Swarna Jayanthi Commercial-
complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
2. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd,
No.2, Plot No. A10, 40-383,
Park Road, Kurnool-518001. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 19.9.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool and opposite party No.1 and No.2 in person and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.35,000/- for the value of the shares (3500X 10) which he purchased, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the receipt of said shares i.e 2.12.2002 till realization, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has purchased 3,500 shares, each valued Rs.10/- in which 900 shares of Essel Soft Ware and services Limited, Bear distinctive No. 4703508 – 4704407 and 2600 shares of Soft Ware and services limited, bear distinctive No. 5078308-5080907 on 04.1.2002, thus the total value of said shares is Rs. 35,000/- and he sent
the above said share certificates to the opposite party No.1 for dematerialization (DEMAT) on 12.2.2002, and the same were received by the said opposite party No.1. He also sent a DD bearing No. 188955/15/05/2002, drawn in SBI, Thdipatri for Rs.500/- towards opposite party No.1 for service charges on 15.5.2002, the same was received by the opposite party No.1. After that so many letters sent by him to the opposite party No.1for Demat. But the opposite party No.1 neither did they Demat the above afore said shares nor did they return the said shares, after that he sent a legal notice to the opposite party No.1 on 26.8.2002 demanding the share value of Rs.35,000/- with upto date interest and the same was acknowledged on 28.8.2002, then, the opposite party No.1 sent a letter to him on 19.6.2003 instructing that he has to consult a third party for quicking the process of obtaining the credit. He is no way concerned to the third party and for any act or error within the office of the opposite parties, he cannot be faulted. Normally it should take only 15 days for Demat after its lodgment but in this matter even they have not yet been Dematted of the said shares as a result of non -demat he could not able to sell his shares for higher prices. In between, the prices of the shares has gone up and he lossed heavy. The said attitude clearly shows that there is deficiency in service in neither demat nor return the said shares to him by the opposite party No.1, hence he is entitled to the said reliefs i.e Rs.35,000/- towards value of shares with 18% interest per annum from the date of receipt of the said shares i.e on 12.2.2002 by the opposite party No.1 for demat, Rs.20,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case.
3. In substantiation of the complaint averments, the complainant relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.4 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments, on the answers to the interrogatories served by him to the opposite parties and on four citations which he referred through his memo dated 30.8.3005.
4. The opposite parties in pursuance of the notice served on them made appearance through their authorized signatory and filed their written version and filed sworn affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No.2, the same is adopted by the opposite party No.1, denying the truth and the bonafidies of the complaint averments and the maintainability of the complaint on facts and law.
5. The opposite parties 1 and 2 admits that the complainant had submitted 3500 shares of Essel Soft Ware and services to the opposite party No.1 on 12.2.2002 and these shares were authenticated by the opposite party No.1 and vide Demat Request Number (DRL) 406484 and dispatched to the respective R & T Agent Viz, KARVY Consultants limited, Hyderabad on 16.2.2002. The said fact was reiterated in the opposite party No.2’s sworn affidavit at para No.8 and the same was adopted by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 in its sworn affidavit at para No.8 further submits that the M/S Karvy consultants limited, Hyderabad had rejected the said shares on 20.3.2002 which was duly intimated to the complainant on 19.6.2002 and the said consultants Ltd did not return the said share certificates for on ward transfer to the complainant, consequently, the opposite parties had been making every effort to elicit the position of the said scripts with the said consultants ltd, but in vain. Thus they are no way responsible for non receipt of the said share certificates by the complainant from the M./s Karvy consultants limited, further the opposite party No.1 admitted and answered to the interrogatories i.e No. 7 of the complainant that he had collected a sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant for expenses involved in opening of D.P.A/c. Further the opposite party No.2 in its sworn affidavit and the same was adopted by the opposite party No.1 submits that there was an agreement in regard to the depository participant between the opposite party No.1 and 2 and the complainant, which was entered on 28.2.2002 and the same was prescribed by National securities depository Ltd (NSDL) and the same has been approved by the securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which is the regulatory authority for capital markets in India. As per the clause No. 18 of the said agreement any disputes between the parties shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai only. As to this case of the complainant the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in support of their case were not able to file the documents which would be enable to mark as Exhibits which are admissible as per Evidence Act. As explained above this complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and hence deserves to be dismissed in Limini.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this complaint:-
7. The Ex A.1 is an attested Xerox copy of the letter dated 19.6.2003 of SHCIL, from the Registered office Mumbai addressed to the Karvy Consultant Ltd, Hyderabad, ( which is the 3rd party not concerned to this case) regarding dematerialization of ESSEL Soft Ware shares No.s 3500 of the complainant where in it is informed that the corporation (OP No.1) had received 3500 shares Essel Soft Ware form one of our customer, Mr S.R. Prasad, (complainant in this case ) client No. (20187536). Accordingly DR No. 41684 was created and the shares of said client were dispatched to the said consultants on 22.2.2002 vide cover No. 200202210358- shipper No. SI-69316-22-Feb, 2002, on verification from the said office, (Karvy Consultant Ltd) they (SHCIL) have been informed that the said share certificates were sent to the company for physical verification and
demat approval. However they (SHCIL) understand that the same have not been received by the company. Mean while from their records they (SHCIL) understand that the said DRN has been rejected in the system with following remarks “Mics reasons“. They (SHCIL) from their records have not received back the certificates nor any further communication from the said office (Karvy Consultant Ltd) or a credit in the account of the customer. The customer has been anxiously following up with them and they are not able to give any suitably reply. In view of the urgency they now requested to verify from the said Company (Karvy Consultant Ltd) records and let them know the future cause of action in favour of the client (complainant) and requested to act immediately and settle the long pending issue. The copy of said letter was marked to the opposite party No.1 with a request to kindly consider in settling the issue as the client (complaint in this case) is very anxious to obtain his credit or at least receive back his shares in condition and also marked a copy of the said letter to the complainant, requesting him to kindly note the above and it possible speak with the concerned officer in the company (Karvy Consultant Ltd) for quicking the process of obtaining the credit. As the complaint has no previty with the said consultancy of the said letter ( Ex A.1) he could not find fault with the said consultant for the deficiency of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in any manner what so ever. The Ex A.2 is the Registered Postal Ack-Due legal notice dated 26.8.2003 issued by the counsel of the complainant to the opposite party No.1 and the contents of which is nothing but the averments of the compliant and demanded to pay the value of the shares of Rs.35,000/- with upto date interest from 12.2.2002 with in 8 days form the date of receipt of the notice, lest his client will rush to the Court of law to take all necessary legal steps against the opposite party No.1, including the charges of the said notice being Rs.500/-. The Ex A.3 is the Registered Postal Receipt No. 5599 dated 26.8.2003 of Ex A.2 (Legal notice) and the Ex A.4 is the postal Acknowledgment dated 28.8.2003 of the said legal notice ( Ex A.2) by the opposite party No.1 and the same was received by the complainant on 01.9.2003.
8. The complainant in support of its case relied on judgment of West Bengal state Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Kolkota, III (2005) CPJ 117 wherein the said commission up held the Order of Forum in which the purchase of shares for commercial purpose not acceptable as services of opposite party hired for consideration for conversion of shares into Demat Form. This complaint against the opposite party is maintainable before Consumer Court. As to the jurisdiction of this case of the complainant raised by the opposite parties, the complainant in support of its case relied on the judgment of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, IV (2004) CPJ 505, wherein Arbitration clause in Agreement about jurisdiction, the jurisdiction Fora not barred and in the judgment of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, II (2005) CPJ 587, also discussed about the jurisdiction under section 17 of CP Act, 1986, even though in the Agreement, the jurisdiction restricted to a particular Court constituted under General/ Common Law, the restriction cannot be extended to the District, the State and the National Commission as they are not courts constituted under Civil Procesure code, but only quasi Judicial Authorities. The complainant in support of its case relied on another judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi – 2004 (3) ALT 19(NC) (CPA) wherein, the complainant purchased 100 shares of respondent company, which were sent for endorsement and delay occurred in issuing endorsement, the State Commission finding deficiency in service, awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- with interest at 18% per annum. In the appeal the National Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- carrying interest at 12% per annum since the respondent took 6 months time in issuing endorsement as result of which prices of shares has gone up. Thus for any Act or error within office of respondent, complainant could not be faulted.
9. As seen from the above cogent material available in Ex A.1 to A.4, the citations referred by the complainant in support of his case and other material available on the record of this case of the complainant, the contentions of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in support of their case is remaining without any justifiable excuse, the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 and 2 is certainly amounting to failure on their part in performing the legitimate duty in not paying the value of 3500 shares amounting to Rs.35.000/- till date and thereby amounting to deficiency of service and thereby entitling the complainant to the claim as the bonafidies of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
10. In the result, and sum up of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the value of shares amounting to Rs. 35,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the receipt of the said shares i.e 12.2.2002 till realization, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for metal agony and Rs. 1500/- towards costs of this case and the opposite parties are granted one month time for the compliance of this order. In default, the opposite parties shall pay the supra awarded amount with 15 % interest per annum from the date of the said default till the date of realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 22nd day of September, 2005
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 The attested Xerox copy of dated 19.6.2003 of opposite party No.1 to
3rd party.
Ex A.2 Legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1
Dated 26.8.2002.
Ex A.3 The Registrar postal receipt No. 5599 dated 26.8.2003.
Ex A.4 The postal acknowledgment dated 28.8.2003.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
1. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd, 210, 2nd floor, Swarna Jayanthi-
Commercial complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
2. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd, No.2, Plot No. A10, 40-383,
Park Road, Kurnool – 518001
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
