State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarla Prasad vs Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. on 15 October, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision:15-10-12 Case No. C-08/02 SMT SARLA PRASAD, - COMPLAINANT 3/17-s, 3RD Floor Grover Mansion, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Versus 1. KARVY COMPUTERSHARE PVT. LTD. - OPS 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaughtplace, New Delhi 2. JSW STEEL LTD. Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 3. INDIAN POSTAL OFFICES, GOI, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President MS SALMA NOOR - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI (ORAL) ORDER
1. 1. Indisputable facts of this case are that the complainant and her family members purchased shares of Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd., which was subsequently merged in Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and this was further merged in JSW Steel Ltd i.e. OP-2.
She held 45,300 shares in Jindal Vijay Nagar Steel Ltd. In lieu of those shares, OP-2 allegedly issued her 1890 shares as per the merger scheme and was also issued dividend warrant for Rs. 5,670/-. OP-1 is the Registrar and the Transfer Agent of OP-2. It is alleged by the complainant that as required by OP-1, she deposited her old share certificates with OP-1 but she did not receive the New Share Certificate or the Dividend warrant from them and therefore, requested OP-1 vide letters dated 23.3.2005 and dated 18.4.2005 (Ex A & B respectively), in response to which she received letters dated 2.5.2005 and 3.5.2005 informing here that the share certificates and dividend warrants had been dispatched to her by Registered Post on 19.3.2005. These letters are Exs. C & D respectively.
She, therefore, approached Indian Postal Authorities i.e. OP-3 and was informed that no registered past was ever sent by OP-1 for her. She again wrote a letter dated 14.6.2005 Ex. E to OP-1 expressing her concern and when did not get any reply got issued legal notice dated 7.7.2005 (Ex.F). OP-1 in reply vide letter dated 28.6.2005 reiterated their stand of having sent the share certificates and dividend warrant by registered post on 19.3.2005 and since the registered post was not received back by them, therefore, the same was presumed to have been delivered. Again after getting negative reply from OP-3, the complainant sent another Legal Notice dated 19.5.2006 (Ex-H) calling upon OP-1 to deliver the share certificates and dividend warrant within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice but received no reply thereto and hence filed the consumer complaint before this Commission jointly with other members of her family who held the shares of the Company merged with OP-1.
2. This complaint was, however, dismissed due to misjoinder of parties vide order dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.I). The complainant, therefore, filed this present complaint on 4.1.2008 again before this Commission in her individual capacity praying for directions to all the OPs jointly and severely to deliver her share certificates for 1890 shares of Folio No. JSW 0297722, alongwith dividend warrant or in the alternative to pay her market value of those shares as on 13.12.2007 amounting to Rs. 25,11,810/- besides amount of dividend warrant amounting to Rs. 5,670/- and Rs. 28,538/- on account of dividend declared by OP-2 on 12.3.2007 and also to pay her compensation amounting to Rs.
5,22,297/- on account of financial loss suffered by her due to non-delivery of the shares and warrants alongwith interest @ 24% with Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony.
3. OP-1 & OP-2 contested the claim and OP-3 since did not appear after service, were ordered to be proceeded exparte.
4. The defence taken by the OP-1 and OP-2 jointly by filing written reply and submitting affidavit of Sh. S.N. Jha, Working Manager of OP-1 by way of evidence, is that there is no consumer dispute within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged grievances of the complainant because Delhi Address of OP-1 is merely for liasioning; that processing activities are all done at Hydrabad only, where the Registered Office of OP-1 is situated. It is also pleaded that the complainant is hopelessly time barred because the complainant has been filed in the year 2008, whereas cause of action if any, had arisen on 28.7.2005.
5. On merits, it is stated that after accounting for all the transfers of the shares of JVSL held by the complainant and family members, after selling some of them in the year 1995 in the open Market, actual share holding of the complainant came to 1776 shares as reflected in the extract of Register of members filed on record as Ex.R/3, and a request vide letter dated 7.7.2008 (Ex.R/5) was made to complainant and her family members informing that after extensive verifications of the record to identifying the problem, actual share holding was arrived at. The complainant them was requested to produce old certificates of JVSL to facilitate a proper and fair solution of the problem being faced by the OPs. and to given an undertaking/indemnity to the effect that they would make good any claim which might arise from any bonafide Share Holder/Investor/Claimant at a later stage.
6. Accordingly, OPs have denied that there was any deficiency-in-service or they adopted any Unfair-Trade-Practice in this case, as alleged by the complainant.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record.
8. On thoughtful consideration of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the OP, we find no substance therein. The complainant has availed the services of OP-2. OP-1 is admittedly the Registrars and Transfer Agents of OP-2 as deposed by Sh. S.N. Jha in his affidavit. The complainant was originally filed in 2007 jointly with all the members of the family holding shares of OP-2 but when it was dismissed on 21.11.2007 on the ground of misjoinder of parties, the complainant filed the present complaint on 4.1.2008. Cause of action in this case is continuing since 23rd March, 2005, when the complainant first write to OP-1 through Sh. Rohit Prasad informing them that his family members including the complainant had not received the dividend and new share certificates (Annex. A appended to the complaint). The complainant continued pursuing with the OP through various communications including Legal Notice dated 19.5.2006 (Annex.-G) and thereafter filed the present complainant in 2007 i.e. within two years despite the fact that her grievance was not redressed admittedly till July 7, 2008 i.e. even after filing the complaint.
Vide their letter dated 7.7.2008, the OP wrote to Rohit Prasad and others namely the complainant that New Shares in JSW would be issued on giving an undertaking/indemnity bond by the complainant. The question of limitation, therefore, does not arise at all in this case.
9. Regarding Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 11(2) of the Act provides that A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum (or State Commission, as the case may be) within the Local Limits of whose Jurisdiction
(a) The Opposite Party or each of the Opposites Parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a Branch office or personally works for gain.
10. Sh. S.N. Jha has admitted in his affidavit filed on behalf of OP, in clear and categorical terms that OP-1 have got their address in Delhi, meaning thereby, that they have the Branch Office here which vests this Commission with territorial Jurisdiction in view of the Section 11(1)(a) of the Act as cited above.
11. In view of their letter dated 7.7.2008 (Ex-R/5) filed by the OPs on the record, it stands clearly established that they have not issued new shares in JSW to the complainant and other members of her family, whereas, OP had been claiming sine 28.7.2005 (Ex.G) that the New Shares have been issued to the complainant; that her shares held under Folio No. JSW0297722 issued under the New Folio have already been sent to her at the address of the complainant by Registered Post on 19.3.2005 which since have not been returned to the OP were presumed to have been delivered. She had been continuously, in communication with them telling the OP that she had not received the New Shares, but the OP instead of verifying their record till 7.7.2008 continued harping on the same tune that the New Shares have already been sent to the complainant on 19.3.2005, which fact was even denied by OP-3 informing the complainant that no such Registered Mail from OPs was received for delivering to the complainant. OPs are, thus, falsified by their own documents dated 27.7.2008 (Ex.R-5). These facts are sufficient to constitute gross deficiency-in-service writ large on the fact of the record against the OP-1 & OP-2. Hence both are jointly and severely liable to make good the loss and for causing mental harassment to the complainant.
12. Allowing the complaint, therefore, we direct as follows:
(1) That OP-2 shall issue New 1776 shares in JSW of admittedly held by the complainant vide letter dated 7.7.2008 (Ex-R/5) of the OPs after complainant submits requisite undertaking/indemnity bond as desired by the OPs, within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
(2) That OP-1 & OP-2 shall jointly and severely pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) in lumps-um to the complainant to make good the financial loss suffered by her due to non-delivery of shares since 2006 and non payment of dividends declared till date and also for causing her mental harassment and agony.
(3) That OP-1 & OP-2 shall also pay jointed and severely a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.
13. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member rn