PANKAJ KUMAR vs TECH MAHINDRA LTD.

These two revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 13.8.2007, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the ''State Commission'') in appeal No.2609/SC/2001, Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar and appeal No.2610/SC/2001, Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Vs. Nand Kishore, vide which, while allowing the said appeals, the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 9.11.2000, in Consumer Complaint No.306/2001 and Consumer Complaint No. 305/2000, allowing the said complaints, were set aside.

Briefly stated, the facts of the two cases are that the complainants/petitioners, Pankaj Kumar and Nand Kishore purchased a total of 400 shares, i.e. 200 shares each @ Rs.21.42 per share of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., now known as Tech Mahindra Ltd. , for a sum of Rs.8,568/- on 9.12.1995, vide Bill No.1857 from the market through a broker M/s S.C. Gupta & Company. It is the case of the complainants that after the purchase, the said shares were misplaced by them, but they recovered the same in November 1999, by which time, the limitation period to get the shares transferred, had already expired. The complainants got the limitation period extended upto 30.12.1999 from the Registrar of Companies on 1.12.1999. The complainants sent the shares alongwith transfer deeds through courier to the respondent company for transfer of the same in their names. However, both the complainants did not receive the said shares from the OP/respondent after doing the needful. Even after writing letters to the OP/respondent and contacting on telephone and meeting them personally, the shares were not sent back to them. The complainants sent legal notices also to the OP/respondent, but despite that, no action was taken. The consumer complaints no.305/2000 and 306/2000, were then filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 10.7.2000, alleging deficiency on the part of the OP in not transferring the shares to the complainants. The District Forum vide their orders dated 9.11.2000 decided the complaints giving directions to the OP company to issue 200 shares each to the complainants with the same folio number, distinctive nos. etc. alongwith 200 bonus shares. Since, the OP company did not appear before the District Forum, the complaints were decided ex parte against them. The OP/respondent, however, filed appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been decided in their favour, the complainants are before us by way of the present revision petitions.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the OP company had indulged in deficiency in service towards them, because they had not transferred the said shares in their names, despite sending the transfer deeds to them.

In reply, the respondent took the line of argument that the petitioners/complainants did not come under the definition of ''consumer'' as the sale/purchase of shares comes under the definition of ''commercial purpose''. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn attention to two orders of this Commission in Vijay Kumar vs. Indusind Bank, reported in II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) and V.K. Aggarwal vs. Infosys Ltd. reported in I (2013) CPJ 373 (NC). The learned counsel further argued that the allottees of the said shares, namely, Valji M. Nisar, Kamal Arora and Shailly Bhambri had objected to the said transfer and the said shares were under instructions of "stop transfer" from the transferors. The company addressed a letter dated 22.7.2000 to Valji M. Nisar, saying that they had received the shares for transfer to Pankaj Kumar etc., but the signatures on the transfer deed did not tally with the specimen signatures of the transferors kept with them. The transferors were asked to confirm/object to the transfer of the shares within 15 days from the receipt of the letter. Valji M. Nisar wrote on 8.8.2000 to send the share certificate to him. The OP had also addressed letter to the complainants, saying that certificate number on the transfer deed did not match with that given on the certificate and the signatures of the transferors also did not tally with the specimen signatures. The learned counsel further stated that the Oriental Insurance Company had also sent a notice to the OP, saying that an FIR had been registered by them in respect of some shares, including the shares referred to above. In view of these facts, the OP company had not indulged in any deficiency in service in not transferring the shares in the names of the complainants and hence, the revision petitions in question deserved to be dismissed.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Valji M. Nisar in his letter dated 8.8.2000 had simply requested the company to return the share certificate. He had not disputed his signatures on the transfer deed. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioners/complainants were not in the regular business of sale-purchase of shares and hence, they were covered under the definition of ''consumer''.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration of the arguments advanced before me. The first point for consideration in the case is whether the petitioners/complainants fall under the definition of ''consumer'' or not. In the case Vijay Kumar vs. Indusind Bank (supra), it was observed by this Commission that petitioners in that case were trading regularly in the shares, for which they had availed over-draft facility from the Bank. They were, therefore, not covered under the definition of ''consumer''. In the present case, it is not made out anywhere from the facts and circumstances of record that the complainants are in regular business of sale/purchase of shares. In the absence of such a proof, the complainants cannot be excluded from the definition of ''consumer''.

The main issue involved in the present case relates to the transfer of shares by the OP company in the name of the petitioners/complainants. It has been amply made clear from the material on record that the allottees of these shares did not agree to the said transfer, when the company tried to ascertain from them whether they had any objection to the said transfer. Moreover, the shares, in question, were the subject matter of an FIR lodged by the Oriental Insurance Company as well. In the light of these facts, it is felt that the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that there was no convincing evidence to say that the initial share-holders executed a proper transfer deed to transfer the shares in the name of the petitioners/complainants. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the District Forum, allowing the consumer complaint. Since there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, there is no justification for any modification in the same in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. I, therefore, do not find any merit in these two revision petitions and they are ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.