KAMLA ISRANI vs TATA SHARE REGISTRY LTD.

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.4.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur I, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer.

IN this case the appellant had made an application, together with Stock INvest No. 263016, for issue of Partly Convertible Debentures of Tata Vashisti Detergents Ltd., with the Canara Bank. The stock invest was encashed on 3.12.1992 but even then no debentures were allotted to him. On inquiry, it was found that due to the negligence of O.P.-3 Bank of Baroda, the debentures have been wrongly allotted to one K.S. Mehta. The appellant filed a complaint in the Forum below for issue of ten debentures and damages of Rs. 25,000. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that in view of the decision of Hon''ble the Apex Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das & Ors., II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC), the complainant is not a consumer and consequently dismissed the complaint.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned District Forum.

IN the present case, it is the positive case of the appellant that he had applied for debentures but the ''agent'' bank of the company committed deficiency in service by which debenture shares could not be allotted to him. His case is not about the grant of ''rights share''. It has been very categorically held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das & Ors. (supra), that the definition of the word ''consumer'' contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase and that no prospective investor would fall under the Act. A fortiori, an application for allotment of shares cannot constitute goods. Till the allotment of shares takes place, ''the shares do not exist''. Therefore, they can never be called goods before allotment. At that stage, the applicant is only a prospective investor of future goods. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act.

AGAIN, in R.D. Goyal & Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., III (2002) CPJ 1 (SC), it was held, that the convertible debentures, as ordinarily understood would not come within the purview of definition of goods as it is simply an instrument of acknowledgement of debt by the Company whereby it undertakes to pay the amount covered by it and till then it undertakes further to pay interest thereon on the debenture-holders. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the discretion exercised by the learned District Forum cannot be said to be capricious, perverse or arbitrary and does not call for any interference by us. The appellant is free to agitate the matter before the Civil Court, if so advised. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.