J.C.T.ELECTRONICS LTD. vs LAKSHMI DEVI

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 29.9.1994 of the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur dismissing as barred by time the Revision Petition against the Order dated 4.1.1994 of the District Forum, Bharatpur which accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Party, the Petitioner herein to transfer 100 shares of Shares Script No. 83679 bearing distinctive No. 19996601 to 19996700 having registered Folio No. S-11081 of the seller in the name of the Complainant and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- for mental, physical and economic losses and Rs. 300/- towards costs.

THE facts in brief are these. The Complainant lodged consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bharatpur alleging that the Complainant had purchased 100 shares bearing distinctive No. 19996601 to 19996700 in open market at the rate of Rs. 58/- from the registered holder having folio No. S-11081, and that the said shares were sent to the Petitioner Company alongwith the duly completed transfer application by registered post on 2.9.1992. The Complainant further alleged that she wrote various letters and reminders to the petitioner herein for sending back those shares after effecting the transfer but the Petitioner herein has not effected the transfer or returned the shares after effecting their transfer. The Complainant claimed damages on account of economic loss, as she alleged that she could not sell the shares when the price of the same had risen to Rs. 65/- per share thus claimed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- as loss suffered by her. The Opposite Parties being noticed sent a telegram dated 25th February, 1994 to the District Forum stating, "100 shares being distinctive Nos. 19996601-19996700 sent by Mrs. Lakshmi Devi w/o Mr. Rattan Lal Khatri not received at our registered office. Further information will be submitted after detail scrutiny''''. The petitioner herein neither appeared before the District Forum nor filed any reply and accordingly it was proceeded ex-parte on 19.3.1994. The District Forum by the order dated

4.1994 ACCEPTED the complaint and granted relief as already noticed above. 4. The Petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur. The appeal (wrongly mentioned as revision) was dismissed by the State Commission in limine on the ground of limitation by its order dated 29th September, 1994.

IT has been brought on record by the Petitioner herein that subsequent to the telegram dated 25th February, 1994 sent to the District Forum, it scrutinised its record and upon detailed scrutiny, it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner herein that the said share scripts of 100 shares bearing distinctive numbers 19996601-19996700 had been lodged with it for registration/transfer by Federal Bank Ltd., New Delhi, for transfer in the name of H.B. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd., accompanied with duly executed, notarised and stamped transfer deed. It is also stated that prior to the share script for 100 shares lodged by Federal Bank Ltd. for transfer in the name of H.B. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd., the Petitioner herein had not received any share script bearing distinctive Nos. 19996601-19996700 for transfer from the name of Mr. Suresh Chand Sharma to any other name. The Counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the position as it stands today is that there are two parties who are laying their claims to the 100 shares and one of the parties has lodged the same alongwith duly stamped and notarised transfer deeds with the petitioner herein while the Complainant is claiming to have sent them for transfer to the Petitioner Company on 2.9.1992 by registered post which had never been received by the petitioner herein. We have considered the arguments and have perused the record. The petitioner herein did not avail of the opportunity afforded by the District Forum and was merely content by sending telegram dated 25th February, 1994 alleging that the said shares had not been received at its registered office and further information will be submitted after scrutiny. The Petitioner herein should have responded, put in appearance before the District Forum and should have given its version before the District Forum. The District Forum also did not refer to the Telegram dated 25th February, 1994 even though it is on the record of the District Forum. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice to remand the case back to the District Forum for de novo investigation into the facts after the version is filed by the Petitioner herein before the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY , the impugned orders of the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur dated 29.9.1994 and of the District Forum, Bharatpur dated 4.4.1994 are set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for de novo trial after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner herein to file its version and allowing the parties to substantiate their respective versions. The parties will, however, bear their own costs before this Commission.