ANIL KUMAR vs RELIANCE CAPITAL And FINANCE TRUST LTD.

THE District Forum, Bathinda vide order dated December 20, 1996 dismissed the complaint of Anil Kumar Garg filed against Reliance Capital and Finance Trust Limited, Ahmedabad on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. THE decision was made relying upon the decision of this Commission in "Amrik Singh v. Bharti Telecom Ltd. & Ors., " First Appeal No. 492 of 1996 decided on October 1,1996.

ONLY brief facts are required to be noticed as given in the complaint to decide the question of jurisdiction of the FORA to entertain the complaint. Anil Kumar Garg purchased two hundred shares of opposite party No. 1, which were ultimately transferred in his name on November 26,1992. In January, 1995 the opposite party No. 1 -the Company opened Right Issue for the allotment of shares. On that basis, the complainant was to be allotted 40 shares, since he had 200 shares in his name. Such shares 40 in number were required to be delivered to the complainant on or before February 15,1995 and the complainant is resident of Bathinda. Factually, such shares were received by the complainant on August 12,1996 i.e. there was a gap of about 1 year. This delay is alleged to be the deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party, which put him to loss as value of the shares decreased from Rs. 155/- to Rs. 75/-. The other deficiency pointed out is with respect to the Dividend Warrant of Rs. 440/- for the year 1993- 94, which was due on November 23, 1994 and was received by the complainant on May 22, 1995. He claimed compensation by way of interest @ 18% per annum on account of delayed payment. Thus in the complaint he claimed Rs. 15,000/- in all as compensation. The opposite party did not put in appearance before the District Forum but submitted written reply by post taking up the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction by District Forum, Bathinda. In this appeal also the opposite party has not put in appearance. We have heard the complainant, who has appeared in person.

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, which deals with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the FORA reads as under : "11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint. Actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain; Provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

ADMITTEDLY, the opposite parties are not having head office or branch office at Bhatinda. Thus only question for consideration is whether Clause (c) would be attracted to the case in hand to clothe the District Forum with the right to entertain the complaint. In Amrik Singh''s case referred to above, the question of transfer of shares or issuing duplicate shares was involved that it was held that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In "Rajaram Comai Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta & Ors.," I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC)=I (1996) CC 74 (NS) also similar view was taken. The matter before the National Commission related to only allotment of shares. It may be observed that when applications are invited for allotment of shares and in response thereto different persons apply for allotment of the shares by sending requisite amounts by obtaining Bank drafts or otherwise, it is in the head office of the Company where the payments are received and applications are accepted; it is from there that the required shares are to be despatched, cause of action in such cases would occur at the place where the head office of the Company is situated and not at the place where persons have obtained Bank drafts and sent the same by post or through their agent-Banks. However, after allotment of shares has been made the position is entirely different in the matter of grant of right shares as well as in the matter of sending dividends on such shares. Such dividends or right shares are to be made available to the share holders at the addresses available with the Company, and in such cases when such right shares or dividends are not received by the different share-holders where they are expected to receive the same, part of cause of action woul accrue there and District Forums of such places would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is only after the shares are allotted or transferred that the question of payment of dividend or grant of right shares to the share holders comes for consideration. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside order of District Forum holding that the District Forum, Bhatinda in the facts of the present case possesss jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of cause of action had accrued there. We do not make any comment on the merits of the case as the District Forum will decide the complaint on merits according to law. Parties present are directed to appear there on June 15,1998. Records of the District Forum alongwith a copy of the order be sent there promptly. There will no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ______________