P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 1616/2005 against CD No. 54/2005 on the file of the
District Consumer Forum, Kurnool
Between:
1. Stockholding Corporation of India Ltd
201, 2nd floor,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
2. Stockholding Corporation of India Ltd,
No. 2, Plot no. A10, 40-383,
Park Road, Kurnool … Appellants/Opposite parties
And
1.
Aged about Major,
R/o H. No.10-278,
River ……. Respondent/complainant
2.Karvy Consultants Limited
Road No. 12,
Hyderabad
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. V. Krishna Mohan
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. P.
M/s. S.
CORAM : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO … PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA … LADY MEMBER
AND
SRI G. BHUPATHI REDDY … MALE MEMBER
Wednesday, the Thirteenth Day of August, Two Thousand Eight
Oral ( as per Sri G.
* * *
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parries U/s.15 of the Consumer Act to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Kurnool in CD No 54/2005 dated 22.09.2005.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased 3,500 shares @ Rs.10/- each, in which, 900 shares of ESSEL Software and Services Limited, bearing distinctive nos.4703508-4704407 and 2600 shares of Software and Services Limited bearing distinctive He sent the above share certificates to the first opposite party no.1 for dematerialization on 12.2.2002 and also DD bearing No.188953/15/05/2002 on drawn on SBI, Despite his letters and legal notice on 26.8.2002, the first opposite vide letter dated 19.6.2003 instructed to consult a third party. Normally it should take 15 days. As the prices of shares have gone up, he
The opposite parties while admitting the of the said shares from the complainant submitted that they dispatched the same to the KARVY Consultants Limited, Hyderabad on 16.2.2002 but they rejected the same on 20.03.2002 and the same was intimated to the complainant on 19.6.2002 but the said Consultants did not return the said share certificates. The opposite also admitted the collection of Rs.500/- from the complainant for service charges. They raised any dispute between the parties shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai only as per clause 18 of the Agreement between the parties. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The filed Ex. A1 to A4 in support of his case and no documents are filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Based on the evidence adduced on record , the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the value of shares amounting to Rs.35,000/- with 12% interest from 12.2.2002 till realization, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1500/- towards costs within one month, in default, 15% interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
The point that arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the order passed by the District Forum is
The appellants submit that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence and there was no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum has failed to look after the bilateral between the appellants and the respondents. The appellants made every attempt to take up with M/s. The respondents resisted that the District Forum has discussed all the pleas which were made by the appellants and given finding and the of the District Forum may be confirmed.
The second respondent was as per the orders in IA 648/2007 dated 2.7.2007, in their counter submitted that there is no with the second respondent and there is no deficiency in service on their part as they returned all the records of the company (ESSEL) and they seized to be the Registrar and Share Transfer Agents at Present respondent no. 2 is not R & STA for ESSEL Software and Services Limited and there is no correspondence from the appellants in this regard.
There is no dispute with regard to the respondent/complainant has purchased 3,500 shares from and the said appellant also collected Rs.500/- towards expenses but the said shares not dematerialized by the appellants nor returned the share certificates. The appellants contended that there was bilateral agreement between the appellants and the complainant but the said bilateral agreement was not discussed by the District Forum. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable since the appellants have not filed the said bilateral agreement either before the District Forum or at the appellate stage before this Commission. The first respondent filed documentary evidence Ex. A1 to A4. Ex. A1 is the letter addressed by the appellants to the third party, itself, discloses that the first appellant has addressed a letter to M/s. that the appellants have received 3500 shares of from the complainant and the said shares were sent to the for physical verification, but, they were not returned. The said letter further reveals after receiving the said shares, the appellants have sent them for dematerialization of the shares and after that the appellants have not dematerialized them and they are corresponding with M/s. regarding the shares. Ex. A4 proves that the appellants have received the legal notice Ex. A2. In the legal notice a specific plea was taken by the complainant that he sent 3500 shares to the first appellant and the share numbers and distinctive numbers were also mentioned and the share value @ Rs.10/- comes to Rs.35,000/-. The complainant made a lot of correspondence with the to pay the dematerialization of shares or to pay their value, but , the appellants have not chosen to give any reply even to the legal notice. After the shares by the appellants, the said shares were not dematerialized nor refunded the value of the shares nor at least returned the share certificates. The appellant contended that the dispute is not a consumer dispute and as per the arbitration clause of the agreement, the District is not having jurisdiction. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. The second respondent submitted that they returned all the records to the company and there is no correspondence from the in this regard. In support of respondents’ claim, the first respondent has relied on 2005 (2) CPJ 587, wherein, it is held that even though the agreement of jurisdiction restricted to a particular Court constituted under General/Common Law, the restriction cannot be extended to the District, State and National Commission as they are not Courts constituted under the Civil Procedure Code, but only quasi Judicial authorities. The first respondent also relied on another decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in 2004 (3) ALT 19 (NC), 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 awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- with interest at 18% per annum. In the appeal, the National Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs.20 The principle laid down in this case is also applicable to our present is concerned. In the present case also, the complainant has sent to the appellants for dematerialization but the appellant neither dematerialized the shares nor sent the same to the complainant. Hence, the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute. The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding not dematerializing of shares amounts to deficiency in service. The appellants further submit awarding the rate of interest at 12% PA besides compensation of Rs.15000/- is not justifiable for not paying the value of the shares, hence the complainant is not entitled for both interest and compensation. The submission made by the appellants are concerned, we have gone through Ex. A2 legal notice issued by the complainant, prior to the filing of the complaint, in which, the complainant has not claimed any compensation , but, only claimed interest. Whereas, the District Forum interest at 12% PA and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation. When the interest was awarded, not paying the value of the shares, again awarding compensation is not sustainable. In these circumstances of the case is concerned, compensation awarded by the District Forum at Rs.15 The appeal is partly allowed and in respect of other aspects, the order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order within six weeks from the date of this order. R2 is not party to the CD proceedings. appeal no relief can be granted against R2. Appeal against R2 is dismissed.
President Lady Male
Member Member
13.08.2008.
I
