R.P.KAPOOR vs TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.

MR . R.P. Kapur is the petitioner and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. is the respondent in this Revision Petition No. 486 of 1996. Mr. R.P. Kapur is a share holder of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., which issued a rights issue offer on 29th May, 1992 and which was finally closed on 31st July, 1992. Mr. Kapur being a share holder applied for the rights issue on July 17,1992 stating that the 2nd joint holder does not wish to join. However, the shares on account of rights issue were issued in the joint names of the petitioner, his grand-son, Amitabh Kapur and his daughter-in-law, Deepika Kapur who are the joint shareholders. The contention of Shri Kapur is that the Company by not issuing the rights issue in his name alone has committed deficiency in service and deprived him of the opportunity of selling them for earning profit at an opportune time without the consent of the joint holders who are living abroad. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, Karnal, seeking a direction to the appellant-Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,72,561/''- as compensation for the loss caused to him and also to delete the names of his grand-son and daughter-in-law from the shares issued to him. The District Forum decided the complaint against him and Mr. Kapur filed an appeal before the State Commission. Before the District Forum the respondent-Company did not appear. However, they sent their continents in writing explaining that the shares could not have been issued in the name of Mr. R.P. Kapur alone because Parts B & C were not completed and signed by the joint shareholders renouncing their claim. In the absence of Parts B & C it would not be possible for the Company to issue shares in the name of Shri R.P. Kapur as his mere endorsement that tine joint holders do not wish to join cannot be accepted in terms of the guidelines of'' SEBI and Rules on the subject. Moreover, these issues are processed through a computer and involves processing of a large number of applications. Therefore, no deficiency of service can be alleged against them. The District Forum decided the case on the basis of these comments which were contained in tine letter of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. dated 19th January, 1994 addressed to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in Case No. 416/93 filed by Mr. R.P. Kapur.

THE contention of Mr. Kapur before the State Commission was that the District Forum should have decided the case as per his complaint in the absence of any version from the respondent Company. The petitioner, in this regard, laid stress on the provisions of Section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that when the respondent-Company failed to appear before the District Forum, they had no option but to pass an order against the respondent-Company. We find that this contention of the petitioner has been very ably discussed by the State Commission which has concluded that "the contention of the learned complainant/ respondent that the Forum had no choice but to pass an order against the opposite party in the absence of any defence by it cannot be upheld. What has been provided under the law is that the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute and not that it should decide in favour of the complainant". We fully agree with this interpretation by the State Commission and see no merit in this contention of the petitioner. Before the State Commission the respondent Company gave detailed arguments and also was represented by their Counsel. The argument of Mr. Kapur before us is that the State Commission cannot take cognisance of any material, point or argument in an appeal before it, if the same had not been presented before the District Forum. In this regard Mr. Kapur has quoted our view in the case of I.C. Sharma v. Bortha Brothers. The relevant portion which Mr. Kapur quoted reads as under: "If no version has been filed before the State Commission then no amount of evidence or material can be looked upon as plea not put forward. At the appellate stage, the appellant cannot be allowed to refer to its version in the memorandum of appeal to contend that the findings recorded by the State Commission are not correct. "

Mr. Kapur has contended that the respondent-Company submitted 31 new arguments before the State Commission which were not contended by them before the District Forum and, therefore, the new points that were sought to be introduced in the appeal, should not have taken into account by the State Commission. On our suggestion Mr. Kapur filed a list of 31 points. We have gone through these points as listed by him and also the letter of the 19th January, 1994 filed by the Company before the District Forum. We find that all these 31 points are merely an elaboration or clarification of the main point made by the respondent-Company before the District Forum. Even at the cost of repetition we would state that the main point in this case is that whether Mr. Kapur was entitled to have the rights issue shares issued in his name alone, when he was a joint shareholder, without completing Parts B and C of the application. It is true that Mr. Kapur sent a letter of renunciation to the respondent /Company but that was much later than the closing date of the issue offer, viz., 31st July, 1992. Surely it could not have been taken note of by the computers while processing the applications. We also do not find force in the argument that the endorsement by Mr. Kapur on the application form should have been taken as renunciation by the joint holders. Since we a re of the view that the 31 points listed by Mr. Kapur are no more than a detailed amplification and clarification of the main point contended by the respondent before the District Forum through their letter, we do not see any force in his argument that the State Commission should not have taken these points into account.

SHRI Kapur also contended that he suffered a substantial loss as he could not dispose of the shares at an opportune time to earn profit as he could not obtain the consent of the joint shareholders and as the shares were not issued in his name alone. We are of the view that the Company cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service or responsible for this alleged loss as it was the duty of Shri Kapur to complete the required formalities, if he wanted to sell these shares. Even on this account, we do not see much force in the argument of Mr. Kapur. Finally, Shri Kapur has argued that, in the interest of judicial fairness, Shri Kulwant Singh should not have written the order on behalf of the State Commission as he has a background of adverse relations with the petitioner when both were in active service with the Punjab Government. Needless to say that this argument is only to be mentioned for being dismissed. The order of the State Commission has been signed by the President, the third Member, Smt. Sushil Paul in addition to Shri Kulwant Singh. It reflects the collective view and judgment of all the three Members of the State Commission, and, therefore, in no way it can be said to have been influenced by any prejudice or bias. The Order of the State Commission is a well reasoned order and is based on the facts, the arguments advanced by the petitioner and the respondents, and a collective view taken by all the Members of the State Commission.

AFTER a very careful consideration of all the points involved and after hearing Mr. Kapur in person we find no justification to interfere with the order of the State Commission and hence this Revision Petition is dismissed.