Centurion Bank Of Punjab vs Sanjeev Mehta

PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') by the Petitioner/Opposite Party challenging impugned order dated 13.8.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 695 of 2009.

BRIEF facts are, that Respondent/Complainant filed a consumer complaint against petitioner on the allegations that respondent handed over 50 Larsen and Toubro shares to CBOP, Rampa Towers, Jalandhar on 1.11.2007 for getting the same Demat. Respondent is having D -Mat account No. 10791564 with the petitioner. Till February, 2008, respondent had no information in the matter. In February, 2008, petitioner informed him that they have not received the physical shares as the same had been rejected due to signature mis -match on 22.11.2007. Respondent followed it with CBOP, for revival of his shares but to no avail. Lastly, CBOP refused to get his share back. In case, shares have been lost in transit, petitioner is liable for deficient in services. Accordingly, respondent has prayed for return of his original/duplicate shares atleast and has sought compensation of rupees one lakh for loss/harassment. Petitioner in its written statement has taken a preliminary objection, that complaint is bad for mis -joinder of necessary parties, as Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. is necessary party. On merits, petitioner admits that respondent had sent the original share certificates with Demat Request Form for purpose of dematerialization. The Sharepro Services had rejected the demat request under objection "signature mis -match" on 22.11.2007. The Sharepro Services ought to have returned the original certificates in case of such rejection. However, original share certificates along with objection memo has not been received by the petitioner bank from Sharepro Services. Although, Sharepro Services submitted that it had supplied/returned the share certificates by speed post on 26.11.2007, vide consignment No. 8413 but the above consignment has not been received by the bank till date. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 17.3.2009 allowed the complaint and passed following directions; "In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we hold that the OP/bank liable for deficiency in its service and order for the payment of the prevalent value of the shares as on November, 2007 till its realization along with compensation of Rs. 4,000/ - and Rs. 1,000/ - as costs of litigation payable within one month from receipt of copy of this order."

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same. Hence, present revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

IT is submitted by learned counsel, that petitioner had sent original share certificates along with demat request form for the purpose of dematerialization, as submitted by the respondent to Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. being the registrar and transfer agent for L & T Ltd. M/s. Sharepro Services ought to have returned the original share certificates but same were not received by the Petitioner -Bank. Petitioner had also written letter to Sharepro Services. In response, Sharepro Services informed the petitioner that it had returned share certificates by speed post on 26.11.2007, vide consignment No. 8413. However, till date, petitioner has not received the share certificates and it appears that same has been lost/misplaced in transit. Under these circumstances, the deficiency if any is on the part of Sharepro Services and petitioner cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of Sharepro Services. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel that duplicate shares have been sent to the respondent and copy of e -mail to this effect has been placed on record.

DISTRICT Forum in its order held; "This fact has been proved that 50 Larsen and Toubro shares were deposited with the OP/bank with demat A/c. No. 10791564 but the complainant had not received back the shares as the same was rejected by the Sharepro Services India Ltd., due to signature mis -match on 22.11.2007. No doubt, the complainant filed the complaints about the non receipt of the shares vide letters Ex. C -3, Ex. C -4, Ex. C -5, Ex. C -6 and Ex. C -7. On the other hand, bank has also made every possible efforts for retreat of the lost shares through its correspondence with National Securities Depository Ltd., vide Ex. C -1 dated 16.5.08 and also with the office of banking Ombudsman dated 23.5.08 and also the exchange of letters with Sharepro India Pvt. Ltd., vide letter dated 22.1.08 and 28.3.08 with a copy to the complainant. On the other hand, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., has sent the letter dated 8.2.08 to the CBPO vide Ex. C -8 wherein, it was explained that shares transfer agent Sharepro Services India Pvt. Ltd., had already dispatched the rejected shares certificates (reason signatures mis -match) by the registered post No. 8413 to the bank on 26.11.07 which till today was not received back as undelivered. The OP/bank reiterated this defence plea in the affidavit vide Ex. OW -1/A. However, since the OP/bank has committed to render the safe and efficient services in respect of the deposit of the shares and further its transmission to the shares transfer agent Sharepro Services and if the said agency had failed to return the share certificates to the bank undelivered, the bank had every right to claim the compensation from share transfer agent, Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., and equally the Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Inaction on the part of the bank to claim compensation on prevalent value of the shares from Sharepro Services Pvt. Ltd., and L&T amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the bank as bank cannot be expected to remain a silent spectator and to avoid its liability when the valuable shares of the complainant were lost. We do not find merit in the other plea of Ld. Counsel for the OP that complainant is not a consumer. The banking services availed by the consumer for consideration even in respect of depositing the share certificates for its transmission to the concerned Registrar and transfer agent of the concerned company brings him within the ambit of the Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)((d) of CPA 1986."

THE State Commission, while dismissing the appeal in its impugned order observed; "10. Although the counsel for the appellant was not present on three dates to address the arguments before the Commission in view of the contentions raised in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent drawn our attention to the document Ex. C -9 executed between the complainant and the bank i.e. participant authorization, which reads as under: -

"We have received the above mentioned securities for dematerialization. The application form is verified with the certificates surrendered for dematerialization and we certify that the application form is in accordance with the details mentioned in the enclosed certificates. It is also certified that the holders of the securities have beneficiary account with us in the same name(s)."

Therefore, the bank has accepted the share with certificates surrendered for dematerialization and application form was in accordance with the prayer mentioned in the certificate. In case there was a mis -match of signature, the same would have been verified at the time of acceptance of the shares. In case Sharepro Services raised this objection with regard to the mis -match of the signature of the complainant certainly the Sharepro Services had addressed the same to the opposite party and in case the same happened and lost in transit, the liability to this complaint/claim was with the opposite party as Service Provider for the complainant. Since there was no direct dealing of the complainant with the Sharepro Services, therefore, he cannot prefer any claim against the Sharepro Services. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned District Forum is correct and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs." 12. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that respondent was having a demat account with the petitioner and respondent submitted share certificates for dematerialization to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner sent those shares to Sharepro Services for transfer. As per petitioner''s own case, it has not received the share certificates from Sharepro Services, then how it could send duplicate shares to the respondent. Moreover, there is no cogent material on record to show that respondent has been issued duplicate shares.

FURTHER , there is nothing on record to show that respondent had any privities of contract with M/s. Sharepro Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. When respondent had submitted its shares to the petitioner, then Petitioner Bank alone, is liable to compensate the respondent for loss caused to the respondent.

IT is well settled, that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, : 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."

THERE are concurrent finding of facts given by both the fora below, that petitioner after having received the shares from the respondent for the purpose of demat has not returned the same to respondent till date. Further, both fora below have categorically observed in their orders, that it is the petitioner who is at fault. Thus, deficiency on the part of Petitioner Bank is writ large in this case. Hence, I do not find any reason to disagree with the concurrent findings given by both the fora below, especially in view of the admission made by the petitioner to the effect that respondent had furnished his shares certificates with their Bank for demat and the share certificates have been lost in transit while sending back them by Sharepro Services to the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

THE present revision petition therefore stand dismissed with cost of 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission, within four weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

PENDING applications, if any stand dismissed. Original records of District Forum be sent back forthwith.

LIST for compliance on 4th September, 2015.