State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Umesh Chandra Khann vs Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Anr. on 2 July, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI Date of filing : 04/03/1999 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 88 OF 1999 Date of order : 02/07/2010 Umesh Chandra Khann 32, New Satguru Manik Ind. Estate, Western Exp. Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. Complainant V/s. 1. Hindustan lever Ltd. Hindustan Lever House, 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020. 2. Mr.Vinod Tank 304-A, Ahimsa Dham, Opp. DCM Daewood Show Room, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064. Opposite Parties. Quorum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.Wadhwa, Advocate for O.P.No.1.
Mr.J.M. Baphna, Advocate for O.P.No.2.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint where the complainant who holds share of O.P.No.1/Hindustan Lever Ltd.(hereinafter referred as Company) alleged that he had applied for and completed necessary formalities to issue duplicate share certificates, but the Company delivered those duplicate certificates under the authority letter in favour of O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank and that under the false and fabricated authority letter which he never issued to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank and as such further claiming that he himself has not received duplicate certificates, there is deficiency in service on the part of Company and thus, claimed reliefs under this consumer complaint, firstly, claiming direction against the Company to issue 825 duplicate share certificates to him and further claimed Rs.1 Lakh towards cost, compensation for mental agony and also claimed that he will reimburse for professional fees of Handwriting expert. Consumer complaint was filed on 04/03/1999.
O.P.No.1-Company as per written version denied the allegations made in the complaint in toto and submitted that after having completing necessary formalities such as tendering indemnity bond, issue public notice of loss of certificates, etc. Duplicate certificates were issued vide No.2910008 to 2910031 and those certificates were handed over on behalf of the complainant to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank, who had submitted authority letter of the complainant. The papers to obtain duplicate share certificates were also submitted to it through O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank. Subsequent to such Company handing over the duplicate share certificates on 03/06/1998 duly executed transfer deed about transfer of shares and other connecting necessary papers were lodged with them on 03/06/1998 through O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank. On 24/06/1998 duly signed no objection certificate for such transfer by the complainant and joint share holder-Mr.Rameshchandra Khanna were also submitted. Signature on the transfer deed of the complainant was duly attested by Deputy Manager/Senior Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Juhu Branch, Mumbai. However, cautionary letter to the complainant was addressed by the Company on 29/06/1998 since signature which was duly attested before the Bank official of the complainant was not tallying with the signature on record of the Company. Complainant did not answer to said cautionary letter and in these circumstances, shares were transferred since all necessary formalities were completed on 20/07/1998 and transfer share certificates were issued on 29/07/1998. They claimed that complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
O.P.No.2 by separate written version affirmed the facts which were disclosed in its written statement by the Company. It is further submitted on his behalf that authority letter to collect duplicate share certificates was signed by the complainant in his presence and that he had collected those transfer duplicate certificates as per authority and instructions of the complainant himself. Thereafter, complainant himself executed document of transfer deed for transfer of shares and which he had submitted to the Company and subsequently, complainant himself and joint share holder Mr.Rameshchandra Khanna also issued no objection certificate which was duly submitted by him with the Company. Share certificates were transferred and he had collected the transfer certificates. There is no fraud committed by him at any point of time as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on his part and no consumer complaint would lie against him.
We heard Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the complainant and Mr.Wadhwa, Advocate for O.P.No.1/Company and Mr.J.M. Baphna, Advocate for O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank. Perused the record made available to us.
The only point that arises for our consideration is as to whether complainant establishes that there is service deficiency on the part of Company in not handing over the duplicate share certificates to him. Our finding is in negative for the reasons to follow.
Though the complainant alleged fraud practiced by O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank and further alleged that the authority letter under which the duplicate share certificates issued were handed over by the Company to O.P.No.2 was not issued by him, he miserably failed to adduce any evidence to support his such contention except his bare words and under the circumstances, failed to substantiate these allegations. It is revealed from the affidavit of O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank that the authority letter was issued by the complainant himself and it was signed by the complainant in his presence and which was duly submitted under the instructions of the complainant to the Company and under such authority letter he had collected the duplicate share certificates issued by the Company. O.P.No.2 further makes reference in detail about transfer deed under which claim of transfer of shares was claimed and also issuance of no objection certificate by the complainant and Mr.Rameshchandra Khanna, joint holder of those certificates. It is further revealed from his affidavit that in criminal investigation when these questioned documents were subjected to examination by the Handwriting expert, it was revealed that they bear signature of the complainant. There is no other evidence in rebuttal adduced by the complainant. Complainant even did not make reference to this piece of evidence adduced on behalf of O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank. Thus, it could be seen that transfer deed and accompanied documents of no objection, etc. are the subsequent events after issuance of duplicate share certificates and handing over the same on behalf of the complainant to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank. If the complainant had any real grievance about genuineness of the authority letter under which the share certificates were so handed over to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank, he would not have executed transfer deed and no objection certificate, supra. Therefore, his such case is to be rejected considering preponderance of the probabilities. The authority letter under which the share certificates were handed over to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank was in fact no authority letter since he did not issue, it appears to be a false statement and particularly with some oblique motive brought out at the later period after share certificates were even transferred on 20/07/1998.
It is pertinent to note that even after caution letter dated 29/06/1998 till transfer of share certificates, complainant did not raise any objection to the transfer. For the first time, such objection was raised at the later stage in the month of November 1998 and those allegations were appropriately answered by the Company as per its letters dated 08/12/1998, 14/01/1999 and also a letter of Investor Service Department dated 09/02/1999. Therefore, we do not believe the allegation and statement of the complainant that duplicate share certificates were handed over on his behalf to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank without any proper authority.
Duplicate share certificates were already issued by the Company after complainant completed necessary formalities, supra. No fault could be confined in the action of the Company to hand over share certificates to O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank as earlier pointed out. Under the circumstance, complainant miserably failed to establish his case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Company since Company failed to hand over personally the duplicate share certificates. There is absolutely no case as far as consumer complaint is concerned against O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank since his services were never hired for any purpose. There was allegation of fraud against O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank which is not an area covered by consumer complaint. In fact there was counter allegation by wife of O.P.No.2-Mr.Vinod Tank for the harassment.
Under the circumstances, we find that complainant miserably failed to establish his case and point for determination is answered accordingly and we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. However, in the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode) Member Presiding Judicial Member