The complainant Secretary, Central Bank of India Staff Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Muzaffapur has filed this complaint petition against Tripti Bajaj A-16/1 04, Chintan Yasudham Goregaon, three others (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 247300/- as cost of shares and dividend allotted against the purchased share, Rs. 10000/- as cost of expenditure incurred and Rs.50000/- as cost of mental depreciation with interest from the date of purchasing of the above said share and also penalty in case the o.p failed the payment in time.
The brief, facts of the case is that the complainant Central Bank of India Staff Cooperative Credit Society is running for welfare of the employees of the Central Bank of India Muzaffapur and society wanted to invest the money in share for which the society purchased Hundred shares bearing Certificate No.- 055926992 & 055926993 of Reliance Industries Ltd. from o.p no.-1 Tripti Bazaz and o.p no.-2 D.K. Bajaz on 03-09-1993.The complainant is secretary of the Central Bank of India Staff Cooperative Society. The further case is that the Central Bank of India Staff Credit Society is not doing trading of share nor it is engage in the business of selling and being of the share rather it is only an investor. The further case is that the o.p no.1 & 2 sold /transferred the above 100 shares of Relinace Industries Limited to the complainant. This sales /transfer was made at Muzaffapur in presence of opposite party no.-3 and the Share of the Reliance Industries Ltd. were listed with the Magadh stock Exchange Patna. The further case is that the o.p no.-1 Tripti Bajaj and o.p no.-2 Dilip Kr. Bajaj have signed on the share transfer sale deed in favour of the purchaser/ petitioner in Hindi in presence of the witness and o.p no.-3 Sri Amrendra Kumar of Patna for transferring it, in the name of the applicant. The further case is that after deal and getting signature on the share transfer sale deed, the documents were sent to share transfer Department M/S Karvy consultancy Ltd. Karvi Consultant Ltd. is presently named as Karvi Stock broking Ltd. and presently its branch is located at first floor Uma Market Motijheel Muzaffarpur. The further case is that the aforesaid documents had been returned by the transferred Department M/S Karvey consulted Ltd, Registrar of issue to the Reliance Industries Ltd with remark-
- First Transfer’s signature language differ from the specimen recorded in the Co.
- Second transferor’s signature language differs from the specimen recorded in the Co.
The further case is that denial of transfer department which has taken place only due to intentionally doing wrong signature by the both o.ps no. 1 & 2 on the transfer sale deed in spite of their knowledge the actual signature done by them on the share allotment application form. The further case is that the complainant intimated thrice to both the o.ps for rectification of signature and early settle the issue and to compensate the heavy financial loss of the applicant by advocate notices dated 19-10-2004, 07-10-2005 and last on 02-08-2006. But both the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it. The further case is that besides dividend Reliance Industries Limited has issued 100 bonus shares of Reliance Industries Limited, 5 bonus shares of Reliance Communication Ltd, 7.5 shares of reliance infrastructure limited and 100 bonus shares of Reliance Natural Resources since 1993 which the complainant is entitled on the basis of the purchase of share from the o.p no.- 1 & 2.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition- Photocopy of share certificate –annexure-1, photocopy of share transfer form- annexure-2, photocopy of share certificates -annexure-3 & 4, photocopy of notice and its postal receipt -annexure-5, photocopy of notice send to Tripti Bajaj with postal receipt annexure-6.
After issuances of notices, o.p nos. 1 & 2 didn’t appear before the forum after service of the notice so, forum proceed Ex. Party against them vide order dated 05-02-2007 and 05-02-2016.
On issuance of notices o.p no.-3 appeared and filed his w.s. on 06-03-2007.as Counter affidavit. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition is barred by law u/s-24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act. It has been further mentioned that the said transaction between the complainant and the o.p nos. 1 & 2 took place in the year 1990-92 and as per its own admission the complainant came to know about this fact in 1998. It has been further mentioned that the complainant preferred this complaint petition in the year 2006 which is in the teeth of section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. It has been further mentioned that as per complaint para-2 of the legal notice transaction took place at Magadh Stock Exchange, Patna and the complainant has chosen to prefer this complaint at Muzaffarpur which again is in the teeth of section 11 of the Act’. It has been further mentioned that at the relevant time he was working as staff to the o.p no.-2 and as such he had merely stood as a witness to the said transaction. The o.p no.-3 has annexed the photocopy of reply dated 01-11-2004 as annexureA/3.
No witnesses has been examined on behalf of either parties.
It is the case of complainant that the o.p no.- 1 & 2 sold/transferred hundred share of Reliance industry Ltd. to the complainant . The further case is that the transfer was made at Muzaffarpur in presence of o.p no.-3 which will be evident from the fact that the o.p no. 1 & 2 executed the transfer on 03-09-1993 at the Muzaffarpur and the share of Reliance Industry Ltd. were listed with the Magadh Stock Exchange Patna. The further case is that o.p no. – 1 Tripti Bajaj and o.p no.-2 Dilip Kr. Bajaj has/have signed the sale /transfer sale deed in Hindi in presence of witnesses and Sri Amrendra Kr Patna for transferring the same in the name of complainant. The further case is that the document was sent to share/ transfer Department M/S Karvey consulted Ltd. Registrar of issue to the I.R.L. for its transfer in favour of the applicant Karvey Consultancy Ltd. presently known as Karvey Stock Broking Ltd. The further case is that the aforesaid document has/had being returned by the transferred Department M/S Karvey Consulted Ltd.,Rregistrar of issue to the Reliance Insurance Ltd. with remarks(a) transfer signature language differ from the spaceman recorded in the company (b) second transferor’s signature language differs from the specimen recorded in the Com. The further case is that the denial of the transfer Department has taken place of only due to intentionally doing wrong signature by both o.ps no.- 1 & 2 on the transfer sale deed in spite of their actual signature done by them on share allotment application form.
The complainant has only annexed the letter of Karvey to Central Bank of India Tower Chowk Saraiyagang Muzaffarpur regarding the transferred form as annexure-2. He has also annexed the photocopy of share certificates as annexure- 3 & 4. The complainant has not produced any document to show the specimen signature of the o.p no.-1 & 2. He has not adduced any evidence on the point that the signature of o.ps on the transferred form was not the same as in the specimen signature before the registrar of the issuance of Reliance Industry Ltd. The complainant has not adduced any evidence on the fact that the signature of the o.ps were different on transfer of the shares. Section 13 clause-2 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is as follows-
Where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute-
On the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint , or . Ex. Party on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits/fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the forum.
So, according to above section the duty is cost upon the complainant to produce the evidence if the case proceed Ex. Party against the o.ps but the complainant has not adduced any evidence on the point that the signature of the o.ps. was different from the specimen signature which was before the registrar Reliance Industry. Moreover, it should be brought into the notice of the o.ps just after the letter of Karvey Consultancy Ltd. i.e on 07-01-1998 but on perusal of the legal notice (annexure-5) it transpires that the complainant sent legal notice to the o.ps in the year 2004, 2005 and 2006 that is after six years of the letter of the Karvey for reason best to known to him accordingly complaint fails to establish that o.ps intentionally/wrongly signed on the transfer deed of the share transfer.
O.ps no.-3 has raised the fact of limitation in his w.s. and has stated that the said transaction with the complainant and the o.p. no-1 & 2 took place in year 1992 and as per his own admission referred to para-1 of the legal notice) the complainant came to know about this fact in 1998. He has further mentioned that the complainant has chosen to prefer this complaint in the year 2006 which is in the teeth section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. On perusal of annexure-1, it transpires that the Karvey Consultant Ltd. (transferred Department ) informed the complainant about the mismatching of transfer signature on 07-11-1998 and the legal notices to the o.ps were sent by complainant on 26-10-2004, 07-10-2005 & 02-08-2006. The complainant has not explained the period on 6 years as to how he has not sent notice of mismatching of transfer signature and didn’t provide opportunity to o.p no. 1 & 2 to rectify the same. So, it transpires that last cause of action arose on 07-01-1998 but the complainant created the same by sending legal notice till 2004-2006 and as such the complaint which has been filed in the year 2006 also suffers from law of limitation u/s 24-A of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986.
On the basis of above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish its case and the complaint is barred from law of limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the complaint petition is dismissed.
