TARSEM JINDAL vs KASHMIRI LAL GOYAL

DR . Tarsem Jindal had purchased 1200 shares from M/s. D.C. Gupta and Company, out of which 200 shares of Larsen & Turbo were sold to the complainant Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal. Subsequently, the complainant Mr. Goyal sent the shares to the Company for getting the same transferred in his name but the Company refused to do so (vide letter dated 3.9.1992). The complainant thereafter sent these shares to M/s. D.C. Gupta and Company with a covering letter without any fruitful result. Later on the complainant wrote a letter to Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd., which informed the complainant Mr. Goyal to approach M/s. Lalit and Company for doing the needful. As the shares could not be got transferred, Mr. Goyai instituted a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum directed the complainant to deliver the original share certificate, etc. to Dr. Tarsem Jindal to enable him to get the shares transferred in the name of the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by this order of the District Forum, the complainant Kashmiri Lal Goyal went up in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties held that: "In one of the affidavits, the appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 48,000 as damages for 200 shares. Having carefully considered the material on record, we deem it appropriate that a sum of Rs. 48,000 will be adequate compensation for deficiency in service on part of the respondent No. 1."

Apart from the above, the State Commission awarded Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

DISSATISFIED with the order of the State Commission, Dr. Tarsem Jindal has come in revision before us. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has not handed over the shares to the revision petitioner for forwarding the same. Hence, he could not take necessary action to forward the same to Dr. D.C. Gupta. Earlier the petitioner had transferred 1,000 shares. There was no difficulty for him to take same action for transferring the balance shares. The District Forum had passed a consent order after hearing the parties, according to which the complainant Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal was to deliver the original share certificates, share transfer deed and other relevant documents which were required to get the shares transferred to Dr. Tarsem Jindal to get the needful done. This has not been done. Hence, State Commission''s order is erroneous and is not based on solid foundation. Findings The operative portion of the District Forum''s order reads as follows: "The complainant to deliver the original share certificates, share transfer deed and other relevant documents which are required for getting the shares transferred to Dr. Tarsem Jindal within two months from today and the later would onward forward the same to O.P. No. 4 (M/s. D.C. Gupta and Co.) who would get the needful done for getting the shares transferred in the name of the complainant. So directions are issued to O.P. No. 1 (Dr. Tarsem Jindal) and O.P. No. 4 for getting the needful done with regard to transfer of shares. The name of O.Ps. 2, 3 and 5 are however, deleted as no relief is sought against them."

(Emphasis supplied)

IT is clear from the above that in compliance with the order of the District Forum to get the relief, the complainant Mr. Goyal has to take the first step, namely, to deliver the original share certificate, etc. to Dr. Tarsem Jindal for getting the needful done. Even though the complainant has not taken the first step to enable Dr. Tarsem Jindal to take further necessary action, the State Commission awarded compensation and cost to the tune of Rs. 48,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively based on the claim made by the complainant in one of his affidavits. This we feel is an erroneous decision, not based on facts and circumstances of the case.

ACCORDINGLY , we allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum allowing four weeks'' time to the complainant to do the needful as per District Forum''s order. There shall be no order as to cost.