SURESHCHANDRA V. PAREKH vs RAMVILAS MAHESHWARI

THIS appeal arises from impugned order dated 11.7.1997 rendered by the learned City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad, in Complaint No. 1066/94, dismissing the complaint. The grievance of the complainant was that he had applied for 100 shares of opponent No. 1 Orient Press Limited on 11.11.1993 and submitted the application form with application money of Rs. 3,500/- with opponent No. 2 bank. In the ultimate analysis, the application was not forwarded to the Company and the complainant was not at a loss of Rs. 3,500/- since the cheque was not encashed. However, the complainant claimed allotment of shares from the opponents the Company and the bank] as also compensation. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was a prospective purchaser of shares in question and, therefore, his claim against opponent No. 1, the Company, was hit by the ratio in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Dass, reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC). In so far as the bank was concerned, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that it was an honest error on the part of the bank which resulted in not scrutinising and transmitting the application to the opponent No. 1 Company. Relying on the decision of this Commission in State Bank of India v. Smt. Kailash Rajanikant Shah & Ors., in Appeal No. 44 of 1996 decided on 11.12.1996, the learned City Forum dismissed the complaint.

THE complainant is before this Commission and we have heard him. It may be noted that as on today the price of the shares is much below the face value and in no case the complainant would be ready to take the shares even if a direction as per his prayer was required to be issued against either of the opponents. However, on principle, the complainant will not be entitled to have any sort of claim being granted from either of the opponents. It is now settled law that he would not be consumer qua opponent No. 1 Orient Press Limited by virtue of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (supra). In so far as opponent No. 2 State Bank of India is concerned, the case will squarely be covered by the decision of this Commission rendered on 11.12.1996 in Appeal No. 44/1996 between State Bank of India v. Smt. Kailash Rajanikant Shah & Ors. These are the observations of this Commission : "...it must be remembered that the complainant had not hired the services of opponent No. 3 for consideration. Opponent No. 3 was merely a collecting agent of opponent No. 4. It did not owe any duty, responsibility or liability to the complainant. It was answerable or accountable only to opponent No. 4 as its agent. There was, therefore, no question of deficiency in service on the part of opponent No. 3 so far as complainant was concerned."

At this stage we would like to refer to the order passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 211/1997 in the case of Anilkant Gajendrarai Buch v. The General Manager, State Bank of India & Anr., decided on 3.3.2001. We refer to this decision as the complainant who is party in person might not be aware of the decision which we have rendered. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of case in Anilkant G. Buch (supra). The basic feature of the decision rendered in Anilkant G. Buch''s case is that the consumer had parted with Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the consumer (sic.) whose employee appeared to have committed fraud and consumer was left with total loss. Again that was a case of applying for right shares and the complainant in that case clearly appeared to have been beneficiary of the service rendered by the concerned bank in that case.

IN above view of the matter, as the present case is squarely covered by aforesaid two decisions namely decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Dass, and Appeal No. 44 of 1996 of this Commission (supra), the appellant being the complainant will not be entitled to the claim set out in the complaint. We find that the complaint had rightly been dismissed by the learned City Forum. This appeal is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.