M PARTHASARATHY vs ITC LTD

SINCE one of us, i.e., Mrs. M. Shreesha, was a Member to the impugned order, list the case for final hearing today itself before Bench No.6. The complainant acquired two shares of ITC Ltd., one from his sister Mrs. N.V. R. Roja and the other from his brother -in -law Mr. N. V. Subrahmanyam. The shares accompanied by the shares transfer deeds were submitted to the Company for transfer in the name of the complainant. The share transfer deed pertaining to the share of the brother -in -law of the complainant was, however, returned to the complainant on the ground that the signatures of the shareholder on the transfer deed differed from his specimen signatures available with the Company. The complainant, thereafter, submitted fresh transfer deed alongwith signature of his brother -in -law duly attested by the Public Notary. The transfer deed was again returned on the same ground and the company insisted on an affidavit to be furnished to it before the share could be transferred in the name of the complainant. There was exchange of correspondence between the parties and eventually the complainant sent revalidated transfer deeds to the Company. This time, the shares were not transferred on the ground that in the meanwhile each shares of ITC had been split into 10 shares and 5 bonus shares had also been issued against them thereby converting one share of the face value of Rs. 10 into 15 shares of the face value of Rs. 1 each. The complainant, however, refused to submit fresh transfer deeds to the Company and approached the concerned District Forum, seeking direction to the Company to transfer the shares in his name. He also sought compensation to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs from the Company. The shares which the complainant purchased from his sister were, however, transferred in his name even before the said share was split into 10 shares of the face value of Rs. 1 each.

THE complaint was resisted by the Company inter -alia on the ground that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. The Company justified its refusal to transfer the share before it was split into the share of face value of Rs. 1 each, on the ground that there was difference in the signature appearing on the transfer deed and the specimen signature of the transferor available in their record. It was pointed out in the reply that the transfer deed which the complainant had submitted on 14.09.2005 had to be returned since it was invalid and therefore did not confirm to the guidelines issued by the SEBI, the date of execution being prior to the date of presentation to the prescribed authority.

VIDE its order dated 19.07.2007, the concerned District Forum directed the Company to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant alongwith costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/ -. The District Forum, however, did not direct transfer of shares in question in favour of the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The Company also filed a separate appeal challenging the order passed by the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 23.09.2008, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals, one filed by the complainant and the other filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum dated 19.07.2007. Both the parties being dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission are before us by way of two separate revision petitions.

A perusal of the record would show that the amount awarded by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission has already been paid to the complainant as noted in the order dated 23.03.2009. The learned counsel for the Company states on instructions that with a view to bring the controversy to an end and without prejudice to the plea taken by them in the revision petition, they are ready to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - to the complainant towards expenditure incurred by him in pursuing this complaint before different Forums, provided the issue of law as to whether a person seeking transfer of shares can be said to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act or not is left open. The payment of Rs. 25,000/ - would be in addition to the amount of Rs. 7,000/ - already paid to the complainant. The complainant, however, insists that at least a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - should be paid to him as compensation. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including that not only the District Forum, but also the State Commission were of the view that the amount of Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 2,000/ - as costs of litigation was sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the offer now made by the learned counsel for the opposite party, we are of the view that if a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - is paid to the complainant towards the expenses incurred by him in pursuing this complaint before the District Forum, the State Commission and this Commission, no further amount needs to be paid to him either towards compensation or any other account. We order accordingly. The payment of Rs. 25,000/ - shall be made to the complainant by way of a pay order, which shall be sent to him by speed post within four weeks from today. The issue of law as noted above is kept open.

WE also direct the opposite party to transfer the shares, irrespective of their number, which are lying with it, against one share subject matter of this complaint, in the name of the complainant, within four weeks from today. We make it clear that compliance of this order will not lead to the opposite party, ITC Ltd. and Ors. incurring any liability, for transferring shares in the name of the aforesaid complainant. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.