PARESHKUMAR CHHANALAL THAKKAR vs CONSUMER EDUCATION And RESEARCH SOCIETY

BOTH these appeals arise from the judgment and order of Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 1369/93. The original complainants were (1) Consumer Education and Research Society; (2) Kantilal Rajaram Dave; and (3) Shashi Kantilal Dave, original opponent No. 1 was Pareshkumar Chhanalal Thakkar who was authorised share broker of Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, the original opponent No. 2 Harish Ambalal was a sub-broker, working as agent for opponent No. 1, and opponent No. 3 Arihant Fabrics Limited was a Registered Company in which complainant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Kantilal R. Dave and his wife Shashi K. Dave were shareholders. Complainant No. 1, Consumer Education and Research Society is a voluntary organisation working for the protection of the rights of the consumers, and complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are Non Resident Indians (NRIs) living in U.S.A. The Ahmedabad City Forum has passed an order directing original opponent Nos. 1 and 2, namely the share broker and the sub-broker to pay to the original shareholders Kantilal R. Dave and Shashi K. Dave, an amount of Rs. 28,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from November, 1990 till payment and also a further amount of Rs. 23,806/- with interest @ 18% per annum from November, 1990 till payment, and also an amount of Rs. 7,500/- by way of costs to the complainants. The original opponents against whom the order for payment was passed challenged the said order by filing Appeal No. 325/96, and the original complainants have filed Appeal No. 331/96 praying for a higher compensation on the basis of exchange rate fluctuation of the value of dollar. Pleadings : 2(a) Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 have alleged that they had hired the services of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 by agreeing to sell 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Limited (Opponent No. 3) on 7.11.1990 as per Memo Nos. 76 and 77 dated 7.11.1990 through them. They handed over Share Certificates bearing Nos. 6620701 to 6621050 and also Certificate Nos. 6621051 to 6621400 alongwith the transfer forms duly signed and Reserve Bank''s permission in favour of complainant No. 2, to opponent No. 2 who was an agent of opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 2 physically took the delivery of the share certificates by receipt No. 1464 dated 26.11.1990 and No. 1590 dated 6.12.1990. Copies of the sale contracts dated 7.11.1990 and delivery receipts dated 26.11.1990 and 6.12.1990 were procured alongwith the complaint. 2(b) The complainants who are NRIs were required to obtain Reserve Bank of India''s (RBI) permission for sale of the shares. They obtained the permission in the first name mentioned in the share certificates and handed over the same to the opponent alongwith share certificates. After about a month, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 objected to RBI''s permission on the ground that the shares had been issued in three names, namely, Shashi K. Dave, Kantilal R. Dave and Pankaj K. Dave. The complainants explained to opponent Nos. 1 and 2 that under the Exchange Control Regulations, RBI issues permission only to first holder of the security, and under the Income-tax Laws, the first holder is regarded as the owner, and under the Companies Act, the first holder gets dividends and other rights. Even then, opponent Nos. 1 and 2 continued to withhold the payment. So, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 got the other names added to RBI''s permission in November, 1991 and the revised permission was also handed over to opponent Nos. 1 and 2. 2(c) The complainants place reliance on the sale of 300 shares each of Indian Glycol Company which belonged to the complainants, to the same opponents who did not insist that RBI''s permission should be in all names and not in the name of first holder alone. According to the complainants, the objection raised by opponent No. 1 regarding the necessity to obtain permission of RBI to sell in the names of all the shareholders was mala fide. 2(d) However, in spite of several reminders, the complainants did not receive any payment from opponent No. 1. When a notice of demand was sent to opponent No. 1, opponent Nos. 1 and 2 orally raised a new objection to the effect that the buyer of Arihant shares from the complainants was entitled to the Rights Convertible Debentures issued by the Arihant Fabrics Limited in March, 1991. According to the opponent No. 1, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were negligent in not depositing the money in the Bank and in not making the application before 30.3.1991 for debentures on behalf of opponent No. 1. As a matter of fact, after receiving the application form for secured Fully Convertible Debentures from the Company, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 applied for NRI 50 debentures and 20 debentures respectively and invested a further amount of Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- from their NRI S.B. Account. These applications were submitted on 30.3.1991, before the expiry date of 6.4.1991, with necessary cheques supported by the Bank''s certificates. However, opponent No. 3 Arihant Fabrics Limited, returned the applications to complainant Nos. 2 and 3 at their New York address. When complainant No. 2 inquired from Arihant Fabrics Ltd. regarding the failure to allot the debentures, a reply was received that nothing could be done as the issue had been closed. The complainants are relying on the failure to allot the debentures on the part of Arihant Fabrics Ltd. in order to meet the opponents'' counter-claim for the value of the debentures. The opponent wrote in his letter to the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange that 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Co. were purchased on account of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 30,625/-. According to the complainants, such a transaction appears to be bogus as no authority had been given by the complainants to purchase 700 shares from the market/particularly when no such transaction can be entered into without RBI''s permission. 2(e) The opponent share brokers also relied on another transaction of purchasing 125 shares of Jaiprakash Industries in the name of complainant No. 2 and an amount of Rs. 2,500/-was wrongly deducted on account of right shares and Rs. 750/- on account of dividend particularly because complainant No. 2 was in fact entitled to right shares and dividends, and so, the opponent No. 2 was not justified in purchasing 125 shares of Jaiprakash Industries from the market. 2(f) Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had made investment in 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Company on repatriation basis by remitting from USA. So, if the opponent share brokers had paid sale proceeds of Rs. 28,000/- in time, the complainants could have repatriated $1576.57 equivalent to Rs. 28,000/- at the rate of Rs. 17.76 = 1$ prevailing in December, 1990. In February, 1993, 1 US $ was equivalent to Rs. 32.91 and, so, only $ 850.80 could be repatriated in February, 1993. Thus, the complainants had suffered a currency loss of Rs. 23,806/- upto to the date of the filing of the complaint. In spite of several letters addressed to opponent Nos. 2 and 3, and also in spite of bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of Ahmedabad Stock Exchange, the complainants did not get any relief. So, they approached the complainant No. 1, namely Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS in brief) with a request to help them in resolving the deadlock. CERS wrote letters dated 10.3.1993, 3.4.1993 and 17.4.1993 to the opponents in this regard, but the opponents strangely counter-claimed an amount of Rs. 19,170/- from complainant Nos. 2 and 3 by letter dated 27.4.1993 addressed to CERS. 2(g) According to the complainants, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had suffered the following loss on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 : (i) Rs. 28,000.00 being the amount of sale proceeds for sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Ltd.; (ii) Rs. 12,600/- being the amount of interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 28,000/- for 29 months from November, 1990 till may, 1993; (iii) Rs. 23,806/- currency loss on account of devaluation of rupee from November, 1990, to May, 1993. According to the complainants, opponent No. 1 had raised a lame excuse to mislead the complainants by holding out that RBI permission was necessary in the names of all the share-holders and not the first holder alone. This amounts to unfair trade practice under the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The failure to pay the sale proceeds and other dues to complainant Nos. 2 and 3 amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opponent No. 1, which is also an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. 2(h) The complainants, therefore, prayed for awarding- (i) an amount of Rs. 28,000/- being the sale proceeds of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Company; (ii) Rs. 12,600/-by way of interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% p.a. for 29 months; (iii) Rs. 23,806/- by way of compensation of currency loss due to devaluation of rupee from November, 1990 to May, 1993; (iv) interest @ Rs. 18% p.a. for the delayed payment from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation; (v) an amount of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant Nos. 2 and 3 due to gross negligence of opponent No. 1; (vi) an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to complainant Nos. 2 and 3 towards costs of overseas calls, postal charges and other expenses and also Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainants; and (vii) an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of processing, filing and pursuing the complaint, to complainant No. 1, CERS. 2(i) A large number of documents were produced by the complainants to justify their claim.

Opponent No. 3 Arihant Industries Co. at Ludhiana did not file any detailed reply, as according to the Company, the real dispute was between the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 and opponent Nos. 1 and 2.

4(a) Opponent No. 2 Harishbhai Ambalal Kapasi, who was the sub- broker working as an agent of opponent No. 1 submitted his reply on 10.1.1994 wherein he denied all the facts alleged by the complainants and contended that the complainants could not be regarded as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He admitted that he had been acting on behalf of opponent No. 2. He admitted that a contract for sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Co. had been entered into between the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 and opponent No. 2 who is a sub-broker. When the share certificates were delivered alongwith transfer forms, it was found that the name of son of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 was also mentioned in the share certificates, while complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had obtained permission of RBI in the name of first holder only. When opponent No. 2 wanted to carry out the transaction of shares through opponent No. 1, the share broker at Bombay informed that until the permission had been obtained from the RBI in the name of all the shareholders, the transfer would not go through. When the opponent No. 2 informed the complainants in this regard, they ultimately agreed and obtained permission from RBI in the name of all the three shareholders. Opponent No. 2 has alleged that they immediately entered into the ''Sauda'' for transfer of 700 shares on receiving permission in the names of all the three shareholders, and so, they were not responsible for delayed sale of the shares. According to opponent No. 2, the permission was necessary in the name of all the shareholders, as per the RBI rules and Stock Exchange Rules. 4(b) It is also contended by opponent No. 2 that after the ''Sauda'' for sale of shares was entered into, all the incidental rights like bonus, right shares, dividends, etc. would accrue in favour of the purchaser. 4(c) The opponent further contended that even when the application form for rights shares and debentures to be issued by Arihant Fabrics were sent to complainant Nos. 2 and 3, they did not submit the application in time, and so, Arihant Fabrics Co. did not allot the rights shares and debentures. The complainants had also not renounced the rights shares and debentures in favour of the purchaser. As a result, the purchaser demanded the rights, share from opponent No. 2, who applied to purchase the said shares from the market at the market rate and deliver the same to the purchaser. Similarly, opponent No. 2 also claimed the amount of market price paid by him for purchasing rights shares and debentures from the market and debited the amount of Rs. 19,117/- in the account of complainant Nos. 2 and 3.

Opponent No. 1 contends in his written statement that he had sent 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Limited alongwith the transfer forms to share broker N.P. Shah of Bombay, and he was informed that the RBI permission in the names of all the shareholders was necessary. So, he asked opponent No. 2 to obtain RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders. This permission was obtained by the complainants after a long time. It is alleged that as complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had committed default in renouncing the rights shares and debentures, the amount of Rs. 14,000/- for purchasing rights debentures from the market was adjusted against the price of 700 shares. Similarly, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 who had failed to deliver the shares of Jaiprakash Industries Limited as per agreement entered into through opponent No. 2, were liable to pay Rs. 19,170/- which was the price for purchase of shares from the market. It is contended that the office bearers of the stock exchange tried to remove the misunderstanding on the part of the complainant Nos. 2 and 3. It is also contended that there was an arbitration clause in the Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad Rules, Byelaws and Regulations of 1957 which applied to all claims, differences, disputes between a member and non-member arising out of dealings and transactions and contracts. Such dispute requires to be referred to two Members of the Stock Exchange to be appointed as Arbitrators and if any of the parties was dissatisfied with the Arbitrators'' award, the award could be challenged in a Court of Law. Oral evidence :

Complainant No. 2 K.R. Dave examined himself as a witness on 30.3.1994. Opponent No. 2 Harishbhai Ambalal was examined on 26.4.1994. He applied for issuing witness summons to N.P. Shah and a conversant person of Ahmedabad Stock Exchange as well as a conversant person from Bombay Stock Exchange. Accordingly, a witness summons was issued to Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange on 3.5.1996 for remaining present on 8.5.1996. As the enclosed letter was not legible Mr. M.J. Pandya, Manager (Administration and Service) of the Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad, made a request to forward a legible copy. Opponent No. 2, therefore, furnished a legible copy to the office bearer of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange. Opponent No. 1 Pareshbhai C. Thakkar was examined on 3.5.1996. One Mr. Yogesh Gyanchand Shah who was a partner in the firm of N.P. Shah was also examined as a witness on 3.5.1996. Opponent No. 2 Harish Ambalal deposed in his evidence that the amounts which were payable to the parties and the share brokers were adjusted in the Bombay Stock Exchange. Opponent No. 1 Paresh Thakkar who was examined on 3.5.1993 deposed that the delivery of shares of Arihant Fabrics was treated as bad delivery in Bombay Stock Exchange, as RBI''s permission was not obtained in the names of all the three shareholders. The witness Yogesh G. Shah who was associated with opponent No. 1 and also who was son of N.P. Shah, a share broker of Bombay Stock Exchange, deposed that the delivery of the shares of Arihant fabrics was regarded as bad delivery in Stock Exchange as permission to sell shares was obtained only in the name of one sharesholder and not in the names of all the three shareholders. Thus, the question whether opponent Nos. 2 and 3 had deliberately called upon the complainant No. 2 to obtain the permission to sell the shares from RBI in the names of all the three shareholders with mala fide intention would depend upon the view taken by the Bombay Stock Exchange and not only on permission issued by RBI in the name or the first shareholder which contains a condition which refers to the specific numbers of the share certificates as well as a condition to repatriate the sale proceeds into non-resident account of NRI shareholder. City Forum''s findings :

The City Forum concentrated on the question whether it was necessary for the complainants to obtain RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders, and if not, whether the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 had shown gross carelessness and inordinate delay in selling the complainants'' shares of Arihant Fabrics. The City Forum held that in absence of any specific rule or law, RBI''s permission in the names of all the three shareholders was not necessary, and so, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 had shown gross carelessness in selling the complainants'' shares as a result of which there was inordinate delay in transfer of the shares. The City Forum, therefore, held that complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 28,000/- as a price of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics and Rs. 23,806/- being the amount of currency loss. The City Forum also awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from November, 1990 and costs. Relevant aspects : 8. At the time of hearing of these appeals, our attention was specifically drawn to the various documents regarding RBI permission, the cash bill regarding sale of 500 shares of Jaiprakash and the accounts submitted by opponent No. 1 for claiming Rs. 19,170/- from complainant Nos. 2 and 3. We are of the view that it is first necessary to understand the claim advanced by the opponent, which is expressed in his letter dated 2.5.1992 addressed to the Secretary of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange. In this letter and statement of accounts, there is a reference to sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics for which Rs. 28,000/- have been credited to the complainants'' account and Rs. 35,000/- have been debited for purchase of 700 shares (converted from 70 debentures) purchased from the market, as against Rs. 14,000/- which the purchaser of 700 shares was liable to pay for 70 debentures @ Rs. 200/- per debenture. So, according to opponent No. 1, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to recover Rs. 42,000/- and they were liable to pay Rs. 35,000/- to opponent No. 1 for purchase of the debentures (converted into shares) from the market, as the price of shares of shares had increased from Rs. 40/- per share to Rs. 50/- per share. Thus, according to opponent No. 1, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to recover only Rs. 7,000/- towards sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics and not Rs. 28,000/- as claimed. The statement of accounts further shows that an amount of Rs. 28,500/- was credited in the name of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 towards the price of shares of Jaiprakash. However, an amount of Rs. 750/- was deducted towards dividend and Rs. 2,500/- was deducted towards their right to purchase the rights issue. As against this amount of Rs. 25,250/-, opponent No. 1 claimed Rs. 30,625/- as being the purchase price of 125 rights shares from open market @ Rs. 245/-. 8(A). The opponent''s claim discloses a very strange phenomenon in which the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency is requested to look at the facts topsy turvy. A person who sells his goods is strangely asked to pay something to the purchaser without recovering the price. Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 who have sold their shares of Arihant Fabrics Limited and Jaiprakash have not received the price of the shares from the share brokers, but the share brokers have claimed a certain amount from the complainants on the ground that they had to purchase rights shares debentures from the open market at a higher rate. We will deal with this aspect in details hereinafter. 9. Thus, the following facts are not disputed : (i) complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to receive Rs. 28,000/- for sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics as NRI for which RBI permission had been obtained; (ii) after sale of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 also sold 500 shares of Jaiprakash, through opponent No. 1 @ Rs. 57/- per share. The question now to be resolved by this Commission is, whether opponent No. 1 is entitled to set off the amount of Rs. 35,000/- for purchasing 70 debentures (converted into 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics) and Rs. 30,625/- for purchasing 125 shares of Jaiprakash, from the open market. 10. So far as 500 shares of Jaiprakash are concerned, the complainants place reliance on the cash bill dated 28.12.1991 to show that the price of 500 shares of Jaiprakash @ Rs. 57/- per share came to Rs. 28,500/-, but out of this price, an amount of Rs. 750/- was deducted for expected dividend and an amount of Rs. 2,500/ - was deducted as purchase price of the rights shares. There is an endorsement made by opponent No. 1 on the back of this cash bill to the effect that if the dividend and rights shares were not declared or received by the shareholders, they could recover it from Harishbhai, i.e. opponent No. 2. Thus it is clear that the share brokers had already received Rs. 3,250/- as the price of the anticipated dividend and the right issue which might be declared after the transfer of the shares of Jaiprakash, and they had no right to purchase the shares of Jaiprakash from the open market, nor the complainants had agreed or authorised the sharebrokers to buy any share of Jaiprakash from the open market. 11. So far as 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics are concerned, the first permission from RBI was obtained by complainant Nos. 2 and 3 on 31.1.1990 and on 26.2.1990 and a transfer form was signed on 7.11.1990. The offer of rights debenture was declared on 23.2.1991 and the issue opened on 4.3.1991. Thus, on 7.11.1990, namely, the date of transfer, even the offer for issuing rights debenture was not declared, and it was not in contemplation of the shareholders. The price of Rs. 40/- per share was thus the price of shares of Arihant Fabrics determined by the parties without taking into consideration the price of rights shares or rights debentures. Thus, the rise in the price of snares of Arihant Fabrics @ Rs. 10/ - per share was the result of declaration of the offer of the rights debentures, after more than 3 months. Initially, the permission of RBI was obtained in the name of first shareholder, and RBI had no objection if the shares standing in the name of three shareholders were transferred under such permission. It was because of unjustified objection raised by opponent Nos. 1 and 2 or the Stock Exchange of Bombay that the transfer was not confirmed by Ahmedabad Stock Exchange for a long time, and complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had to obtain RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders. But, it cannot be forgotten that the offer of rights debentures was declared more than three months after the original transfer forms were signed and delivered to the opponent No. 1 alongwith share certificates. Moreover if the stock exchange had treated delivery of shares with RBI permission in the name of one shareholder as bad delivery there was no transfer and the transferee could not claim any rights debentures or rights shares. Even according to the opponent share brokers the transfer of shares became good delivery only after permission of RBI was obtained in the name of all the three shareholders, and so till then the original shareholders were entitled to the rights issue, and not the transferees. 11(A). There is another reason also for arriving at this conclusion. In the letter of offer issued by Arihant Fabrics Limited regarding issue of secured fully convertible debentures, it has been clearly mentioned that "the Non Resident Indian shareholders have the right to renounce the entitlement to the debentures offered to them in full or in part, in favour of any other Non Resident Indian/person of Indian origin residing abroad, who may or may not be an existing shareholder of the Company. The allotment of such debenture will, however, be subject to receipt of approval from the RBI". Thus, even complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had no right to renounce any debenture in favour of any person who was a Non Resident Indian shareholder. So the opponent''s claim on the basis of the alleged purchase of rights debentures or shares from the open market is not even otherwise tenable. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that even without going through all this necessary exercise, the City Forum had rightly taken the view that complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to recover Rs. 28,000/- for the shares of Arihant Fabrics from opponent Nos. 1 and 2, but it had committed an error in calculating the amount of currency loss on the basis that the conversion rate of US $ on 7.11.1990 was to be taken into account. When the opponents requested the complainant No. 2 to obtain RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders, they were acting as per the dvice and instructions of the Bombay Stock Exchange, inasmuch as the Bombay Stock Exchange had treated the delivery of shares with RBI permission in the name of first shareholder only as bad delivery and it is also a fact that complainant Nos. 2 and 3 thereafter obtained RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders. Thus, the opponent shareholders were not liable for currency loss as on 7.11.1990, since they were not able to get the price of shares as on 7.11.1990 due to the attitude adopted by the Bombay Stock Exchange. Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were, therefore, acting in good faith and they would not be liable for deficiency in service from 7.11.1990 upto the date of obtaining RBI permission in the names of all the three share, holders. We pointedly asked the complainants as well as opponents at the time of hearing regarding the exact date on which the RBI permission in the name of all the three shareholders was obtained, but none of the parties was in a position to give the exact date. Complainant No. 2, after referring to the correspondence with the Corporation Bank was able to state that the permission in the names of all the three shareholders might have been issued in November/ December, 1991. This means that after November/December, 1991, there was no scope for the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to say that there was bad delivery of shares. Thus, the month of November/ December, 1991 is the period during which the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to the price of their shares from opponent Nos. 1 and 2. As the month of November/December, 1991 would be the correct period during which currency loss will have to be ascertained, we have called upon the parties to find out the approximate exchange rate during this period. We are told that the exchange rate in November/December, 1991 was Rs. 100 = US dollars 3.8850 [1 dollar = Rs. 25.74]. Thus so far as the shares of Arihant Fabrics Ltd. are concerned, complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to receive US $ 1087 from opponent Nos. 2 and 3 which would be equivalent to Rs. 28,000/-. The complaint was filed on 31.7.1993, when the rate of exchange was Rs. 32.91 per dollar. So the actual loss on the date of complaint was 234.59 dollars equivalent to Rs. 7,720/- over and above the price of shares. Other contentions : 13. After considering the most vital points involved in the appeals, we will now deal with and dispose of the other contentions raised on behalf of the opponents : (A) It was contended that the complaint involved complicated questions of law and facts, and so they could not be resolved by the summary procedure to be followed by a Consumer Forum. It was submitted that in such cases the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency should have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court or resort to arbitration. A similar contention has been raised in Appeal No. 325/ 96 also. Such a submission cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the fact that six years have already passed after the complaint was filed; evidence was recorded at length. It would therefore defeat the ends of justice if the parties are asked to approach the Civil Court to resolve the disputes raised in the complaint, at the fag end. (B) The opponent share brokers have submitted in writing in Appeal No. 325/96 that even though the shares brokers had applied for witness summons to employees of Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange, the City Forum had given only one week to produce the witnesses, and so, this haste has resulted in miscarriage of justice. This submission does not hold good in view of the fact that the share brokers had already examined the witness Yogeshbhai Gyanchandbhai Shah who was the son and partner of the firm run in the name of "N.P. Shah". His father was managing the affairs of the firm at Bombay and the witness Yogeshbhai was attending to the affairs at Ahmedabad and it was Yogeshbhai who had admittedly entered into the two transactions regarding sale of shares and who deposed regarding bad delivery of shares as determined by Bombay Stock Exchange. Moreover, the share brokers had filed appeal No. 115/96 in the State Commission regarding the refusal of the City Forum to grant further time to produce the witness and the appeal was rejected. Even apart from the procedural aspect, it is obvious that the witness from Bombay Stock Exchange would not have thrown any further light on the liabilities of the parties. At the most, he might have said that the Bombay Stock Exchange had regarded the delivery of shares as bad delivery upto a particular date. We are giving the benefit of this circumstance to the opponent share brokers and hold in their favour that they might have asked the complainants in good faith to obtain the permission from RBI in favour of all the shareholders at the instance of the Bombay Stock Exchange. This circumstance might, at the most, change the crucial date for determination of the exchange or conversion rate but not the liability to pay the price of the shares. Findings in brief :

The following are our findings in brief : (i) Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 had no personal interest in delaying the transfer of shares. They acted in good faith in calling upon the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 to obtain RBI permission in the names of all the three shareholders, as advised by the Bombay Stock Exchange; (ii) Even complainant Nos. 2 and 3 complied with their request and obtained such permission approximately in November, 1991. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 were unable to give any definite date but complainant No. 2 Kantilal Dave gave an approximate date in context of his letter to the Corporation Bank. So, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to get the purchase price of the shares of Arihant Fabrics Ltd. by the end of 1991 and not in 1990; (iii) Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 were not entitled to deduct any amount towards the alleged purchase of rights debentures/shares from open market for the reasons stated in paras 11 and 11(A) hereinabove : (iv) The opponent shareholders were not entitled to deduct any amount towards the alleged purchase of shares of Jaiprakash from the open market. (v) The conversion rate of exchange as in December, 1991 will determine the loss suffered by the complainant Nos. 2 and 3. From that date these complainants will recover interest @ 12% per annum till payment. (vi) So far as the price of Arihant shares is concerned, the amount when received will have to be repatriated as per condition of RBI permission, and a copy of the order of this Commission will be sent to RBI; (vii) The deficiency in service on the part of the share brokers-original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 - consisted of their default in paying the sale proceeds of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Ltd. to the shareholders - original complainant Nos. 2 and 3 - in December, 1991, and their counter claim is of unjustified set- off. Re - costs : Costs : There will be no order as to costs, as we have no sympathy for the parties who have failed to get the complicated questions arising in this matter resolved through Arbitrator or Stock Exchange and who did not approach the Civil Court for resolving such questions but drove the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency to record lengthy evidence and resort to lengthy submissions over about 6 to 7 years at the cost of other pending matters; and the Commission also did not think it just and advisable to relegate the parties to Civil Court at the fag-end;

So far as complainant No. 1, Consumer Education and Research Society is concerned, we are of the view that it should not have advised and supported the shareholders in approaching the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies in view of the complicated questions involved, which could not be resolved by the machinery provided by the stock exchange, and the Civil Court would have been the proper Forum for deciding such issues which entail recording of lengthy evidence and submission of lengthy arguments. Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies are not meant for time- consuming litigation. Even though by some stretch of language, the service rendered by the share brokers would be covered by the Consumer Protection Act, time-consuming resolution of such lengthy disputes by Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies will obviously curtail the valuable time which can be devoted to settlement of disputes raised by helpless and suffering section of the society. We, therefore, do not think it just or proper to award any costs to Consumer Education and Research Society also. We hope that the view expressed by us regarding time-consuming nature of complicated disputes that may be raised by well-to-do parties will be kept in mind in future by Consumer Education and Research Society, so that by proper self-restraint it will be able to serve the interests of the consumers at large.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, particularly made in para 12 hereinabove, we are inclined to pass an order directing opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay (i) an amount of Rs. 28,000/- being the price of 700 shares of Arihant Fabrics Limited; (ii) an amount of Rs. 7,720/- as compensation for currency loss due to devaluation of rupee from November, 1990 to June, 1993; (iii) interest on the aforesaid amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realisation; and (iv) Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for mental pain and suffering as well as actual costs incurred by the complainants in making overseas calls and incurring postal charges. 17. For the reasons stated in para 15, we are not inclined to award any costs to either party. 18. Hence, the following order.

ORDER Appeal No. 325/96 filed by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 is partly allowed, and Appeal No. 331/96 filed by the original complainants for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.

OPPONENT Nos. 1 and 2, namely Pareshkumar Chhanalal Thakkar and Harish Ambalal are jointly and severally liable to pay and shall pay Rs. 35,720/- to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Kantilal R. Dave and Shashi K. Dave with interest @ 12%p.a. from 31.7.1993 to the date of payment. As per condition of RBI permission, this amount will have to be repatriated. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will also pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 by way of compensation for mental agony and suffering as well as actual costs incurred in postal communication.

There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. The aforesaid payments will be made within a period of three months, and in case of default, they will carry interest @ 18% p.a. A copy of this order will be forwarded to Reserve Bank of India. Appeal 325/96 partly allowed and 331/96 dismissed.