RAJ KUMAR JAIN vs KARVEY COMPUTERSHARE PVT. LTD.

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the learned District Forum, Kota whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed on the ground that the dispute is such that cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the Forum.

IN this case 120 equity shares of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. of the face value of Rs. 10 were held in the name of one Rikhab Chand Jain and the appellant jointly in which the said Rikhab Chand Jain was the first holder. According to the complaint filed by the complainant in the Forum below, the first holder died on 12.8.1980. As such, the complainant informed the respondent No. 3 in September, 1993 that out of 120 shares, 80 shares have been lost and as such duplicate shares may be given and the shares may be transferred in his name. The respondents transferred 40 shares in the name of the complainant but as the remaining 80 shares were reported to be lost, the respondent No. 3 asked the complainant to execute an indemnity bond in favour of the company and complete other formalities. The complainant alleged that the respondent No. 3 has not transferred the shares in his name and as such it has committed deficiency in service and have adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant also alleged that Smt. Omwati Jain, wife of the first holder of shares had lodged a F.I.R. about the loss of shares which is false and the respondent No. 3 had no right to withhold his shares on the objections of the said Smt. Omwati Jain. IN the circumstances, the complainant requested for directions for transfer of 80 shares in his name, payment of arrears of dividend and damages of Rs. one lakh on account of mental agony. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed on admission stage by the learned District Forum on the ground that the issues raised in the complaint disclose matters which require recording of detailed evidence and as such it cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.

Aggrieved with this order, the appellant has come up before us in appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties at admission stage and have perused the material on record. The learned Counsel for the respondents filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3 only. No such affidavit has been filed by rest of the respondents.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the dispute does not require detailed evidence and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the dispute pertains to rival claims made by different persons and criminal case is also under investigation and as such the complaint is not maintainable.

WE have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and are of the opinion that the case requires to be remanded to the Forum below for hearing and deciding afresh. In this case, the learned District Forum has observed that the complaint appears to be barred by limitation and the complainant has produced 24 documents which require a detailed recording of evidence. At this stage, we do not want to comment on the nature of the documents but it is suffice to observe that on the face of it some of the documents are merely letters, reminders, and copies of ration card, etc. We feel that the learned District Forum ought to have issued notice to the respondents and taken its pleadings on record and on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned District Forum was free to arrive at a decision whether or not the matter in issue can be effectively tried by it in a summary and speedy manner. This case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)=V (2003) SLT 185=2004 NCJ 1 (SC). It has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case that the Consumer Forum ought to have issued notice to the respondent and taken its pleadings on record. Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the Consumer Forum formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of inquiry, i.e., whether the questions arising for decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation into the facts which are incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Then the Consumer Forum could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of driving away the complainant to the Civil Court. As such, Their Lordships held the impugned order as premature and allowed the appeal.

IN view of the foregoing, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Forum below for hearing afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum, Kota on 10th April, 2006 for the purpose of receiving the directions of that Forum as to further proceedings in the complaint. The respondents are also directed to file their version of the case in the Forum below on that date. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.