FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,

A complaint is filed by the complainant alleging therein that he is a holder of 100 shares ofOP No.2 under distinctive numbers 0013599310 vide Certificate No. 00076309 which he acquired from one Nirmal Kumar Ruia. The above 100 shares were under Folio No. EXN0003800 maintained by OP1 in the name of respondent/complainant.  The OP No.1 is a transfer agent and is responsible for handling requests for dematerialization of shares, payment of dividends declared by OP No.2 and crediting bonus shares to the accounts of the registered holders etc.On 28/12/1994 Income Tax Authorities seized the said share certificate along with other share certificates of the companies and also the transfer deeds from the office of the complainant. Said original certificates were duly released free from all encumbrances to the complainant without transfer deed vide release letter dated 25/09/2014 from income tax authority. Therefore, thecomplainant had applied to OP No.1to convert the aforesaid shares in dematerialized form and also surrendered the original share certificates to OP1 for the said purpose as per their demand. However, the OP1 vide letter dated 01.03.2018refused to dematerialize the abovementioned shares and retained the original certificates.

OP despite service of notice of the complaint have failed to file Written Version within the limitation provided u/s 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. No request for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing written version is made. Therefore, right of the OPs to file WV is closed.

Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced of the complainant.

We have travelled over the documents on record i.eSHARE CERTIFICATE,SEIZURE LIST and RELEASE LETTER issued by the INCOME TAX AUTHORITY,Email correspondence of the parties , LEGAL NORTICE issued by the complainant to the OP1 etc. The admitted fact is that 100 shares of OP2 was purchased by one Nirmal Kumar Ruia  on 29/01/1992 and the said share certificate was seized by along with other share certificates during the search operation conducted by the Income Tax Authority on 28/12/1994 from the office of the complainant. At that time the share in dispute was in the name of said Nirmal Kumar Ruia. Fact also remains that said shares were released free from encumbrances on 25/04/2014 from the Income Tax Authority and the complainant immediately informed the same to OPs with a request to dematerialize the said share certificates in the complainant’s name vide letter dated 24/10/2014.On perusal of the record it is found acknowledging the letter the OP1asked for necessary documentsi.e. Copies of Contract Note, Proof of payment for purchase of shares and explanation as to why those shares were seized by the Income Tax Authority to prove those shares were acquired from Nirmal Kumar Ruia  for valuable considerationvide letters dated 31/12/2014 and several correspondence were made between the parties.Further the OP1vide letter dated 18/10/2021 intimated the complainant that:

“We may inform you that 100shares bearing distinctive nos. 13599211-13599310 and certificates no. 76309 stand in the name of Nirmal Kumar Ruia and the holder in 2016, had reported loss of these shares. In response we had informed the holder that the shares form part of the ITO seizure order and hence no procedure for issue of duplicate shares will be issued, unless the ITO order is received for further action at our end.”

Moreover, again the OP1 called for abovementioned documents from the complainant for transferring the said shares in the name of the complainant vide same letter. The documents on record showing that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 09/02/2022to the OP1enclosing the copy of the Share Certificate of the OP2, copy of Income Tax Attachment Notice of 1994 along with seizure list, copy of letter dated 25/09/2014 issued by the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income tax to OP2 and letter of OP2 bearing no. LG215239011/ED dated 14/102014 to Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Cc to Kailash Prasad Jain indicating the conditions of said shares to the complainant as he is the beneficial owner of shares along with corporate benefits like Bonus. On Reply The OP1 informed the complainant vide letter dated 01/03/2022 that till date they have not been received the Transfer Deed duly signed by the holders, copies of Contract Note, proof of payment for purchase of shares and explanation as to why these shares were seized by the Income Tax Authority and the copy of the SH-4 Securities Transfer form reflects the signature of the complainant and not of the holder, viz Nirmal Kumar Ruia.It is also informed by the OP1 to the Ld. Advocate of the complainant vide letter dated01/031/2022 that:

2. Pursuant to the SEBI circular SEBI/HO/MIRSD/RTAMB/CIR/P/2020/166 dated 07^th September,2020 the last date for re-lodgement of transfer deeds was 31^st March,2021 alongwith the documents called for in the earlier correspondence as mentioned in point no.1. Therefore your request to transfer the shares in favour your client Mr Kailash Prasad Jain cannot be considered.

The OP1 stated in the said letter that the original shares or transfer deed and the contents mentioned in the legal notice of the complainant has been returned to the complainant. It is also clearly stated by the OP1in the letter dated 01/03/2022 that:

…. we may state that due to SEBI norms and the time frames furnished by SEBI, the RTA nor the Company is liable to liable to transfer the shares as requested and will not bear any consequences due to legal proceedings initiated by you including consumer case before appropriate Court at any cost.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the documents which are called for by the OP1 were lost in the process of seizure conducted by the Income Tax Authority. But the complainant failed to furnish a single scrap of paper or any material document regarding the said lost documents in support of his contention. Therefore this submission has no value in the eye of law.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the case due to lack of vital necessary document.

As such, the case fails for lack of material document.

Hence,

ORDERD

That the case be and the same is dismissed against the OPs on ex parte without anycost.