AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2631 of 2002 - Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Smt. Snehlata Agarwal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent opened Demat account in the name of M/s. Snehlata Agarwal and Bharat Kumar Agarwal in the office of the opposite party. On 25.7.2000, complainant deposited 500 shares of M/s. Antarkita Graphics Ltd. for Demat and after three months, OP informed complainant that Demat application of the complainant has been rejected by M/s. Antarkita Graphics Ltd. OP neither informed reasons for rejection, nor returned share certificates. In the meantime, prices of shares increased and complainant suffered loss of Rs.21,120/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP was proceeded ex -parte before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.21,120/ -. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner and petitioner was only to transmit the request for Demat, which was done by him; even then, District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that petitioner failed to give reasons for rejection in time and failed to return share certificates and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
PERUSAL of record reveals that complainant deposited shares for Demat on 25.7.2000 and OP despatched share certificates on 1.8.2000, which were received by NSDL on 4.8.2000. It appears that the concerned Company to whom the shares were sent for Demat rejected request on 16.9.2000 and subsequently, fresh request for Demat was made on 27.8.2001and shares were dematerialized on 14.9.2001. Apparently, role of the petitioner was only to transmit the shares to NSDL for dematerialisation and concerned company whose shares were to be dematerialized were to accept or refuse the request. Request was rejected by the concerned company and we do not find any fault or deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. Letter dated 8.8.2001 sent to complainant reveals that petitioner was giving repeated reminders for earliest despatch of the rejected share certificates, but as they were not received by the petitioner, petitioner could not have returned shares to the complainant. Letter dated 18.8.2001 by M/s. Maheshwari Datamatics Pvt. Ltd. to the OP further makes it clear that request for dematerialisation was inadvertently rejected by M/s. Maheshwari Datamatics Pvt. Ltd. and in such circumstances, no negligence can be attributed on the part of OP.
RESPONDENT could not substantiate his arguments that petitioner delayed in despatching share certificates for dematerialisation or retained shares duly returned after rejection of request for a considerable period. In such circumstances, impugned order and order of District Forum are liable to set aside, as no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of petitioner.
CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the U.P. State Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No. 2631 of 2002 - Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Smt. Snehlata Agarwal and order of District Forum dated 23.07.2002 - Smt. Snehlata Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. passed in Complaint Case No. 676 of 2001 are set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.