DATAMATICS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. vs WOSI KHAN

THIS revision petition is filed by M/s. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. against the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by Jharkhand State Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 8/2004.

BRIEF facts of the case are: The petitioners were appointed by the SBI Mutual Fund as the Registrars and Transfer Agents for Magnum Multiplier Plus Scheme 1993 (MMPS''93). The petitioners are now known as M/s. Datamatics Financial Software & Services Ltd. Respondents Mr. Wosi Khan and Mr. Mozahid Khan purchased 5,000 MMPS''93 shares at the rate of Rs. 10 each by making a payment of Rs. 50,000. After processing, these shares were allotted to respondents by the petitioner under Folio No. 0471569 and were despatched the same to the respondents at the address recorded in the application form filed by the respondents. The said shares were received back undelivered by the postal authorities. The petitioner thereafter informed the respondents by letter dated 15.9.1993 and subsequently by way of a reminder on 23.6.1994 for the confirmation of the correct address by the respondents. These letters were admitted to have been received by the respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said certificates were re-despatched to the respondents at the same address and the same were not received and delivered again from the postal department. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a normal presumption that the said certificates were received by the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that in the month of May, 1998 they received the aforesaid certificates for transfer from one Shah Mradula having address 22, Old Lalan Building, Devi Dayal Road, Panch Rasta Mulund (West), Mumbai. Since the thumb impression and the signatures of the respondents on the relevant transfer deed were prima facie found to be correct and as there was neither any valid objection nor any FIR or any Court prohibitory order to restrain the transfer, the petitioner affected the transfer, as requested.

Respondents enquired about the status of the certificates in question in the month of May, 1999 and petitioner conveyed the information regarding certificates being transferred in the name of Shah Mradula as per their request.

AGGRIEVED by the action of the petitioner who transferred the certificates to a third party without the knowledge of the respondents. Respondents filed a complaint in the District Forum, Deogarh (Jharkhand) claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 3.2.1993 and Rs. 50,000 for mental agony. District Forum dismissed the complaint of the respondents on the ground that Shah Mradula was not made a party in the present proceedings and held that the appropriate jurisdiction of the complaint would be Civil Court. Complainants filed an appeal in the State Commission which appreciated the evidence on record and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of allotment of the certificates till the date of realization of the amount along with compensation of Rs. 25,000 for harassment and mental agony. This order is under challenge by the revision petitioner who filed the revision petition after a delay of 43 days. This Commission issued notice in application seeking condonation of delay and in revision petition limited to award of compensation of Rs. 25,000 and rate of interest to the respondents. Although respondents opposed the application for condoning the delay, in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 43 days.

AFTER perusing the documents on record, we made a query to the petitioners regarding Ex. A (Annexure B) as to why the relevant transaction of sending the shares that has been shown in the postal register which is maintained by the petitioner regarding the postal despatch of the shares in question, there is no date of despatch written against the same in the ledger. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not give a satisfactory reply except to say that it is not available. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show proof of the date of despatch but he could not also show the letter received by them instructing the said transfer by the respondents. Although it is argued that these certificates were despatched and re-despatched and there is no iota of evidence to show the same. Hence, we are unable to agree with the argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the transfer of shares to the respondents. Respondents were denied the amount they have spent on the shares for so many years and their prayer for compensation for return of the share amount with interest is justified. In our view the interest at 18% is high and we reduce it to 15% and set aside the order of the State Commission regarding the compensation of Rs. 25,000. In view of the above discussion we pass the following order. The revision petition is partly allowed. Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of allotment of certificate till the date of realization of the amount along with Rs. 10,000 as costs within three weeks from the receipt of this order. Revision Petition partly allowed.