GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs ANAND SINGH

THIS appeal by the General Manager, State Bank of India, Bombay (SBI, Bombay) and the branch of State Bank of India at Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) (O.P. Nos. 1 and 2) respectively in Complaint No. 1 of 1995 before the District Forum, Jaisalmer against Forum''s Order dated 4.11.1995 arises under the following circumstances: Shri Anand Singh, the complainant-respondent, had been allotted 50 Equity Shares of Rs. 100/- each by the SBI, Bombay, in its Public Issue held in the year 1993. Since the relevant Share Certificate, relating to the allotted shares, was not received by the complainant in due course of time, he invited the attention of the SBI, Bombay and M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay (O.P. No. 3 in complaint but not a party to appeal) which appears to be assisting the SBI, Bombay in the matter of despatching the share certificates to the allottees, in that behalf. By the correspondence entered into by him with the SBI, Bombay and its agents/employees the complainant came to know that the share certificate was delivered to some wrong person who purported to transfer the same to Shri Gopi Kishan Radha Kishan S. Damani of Bombay (O.P. No. 4 in complaint but not a party to this appeal) and on the basis of such false transfer deed the aforesaid Gopi Kishan Radha Kishan S. Damani had applied to M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay to transfer the shares in his name. By its handwritten letter dated 19.10.1994 M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay informed the complainant that the shares in question were already transferred from his name to that of Shri Damani, aforesaid and that the certificates, duly despatched to the transferee. But by its computerised letter of the following date i.e., 20.10.1995, the same M.C.S. Ltd. informed the complainant that although they had put a provisional ''stop'' on their computer system to restrict transfer of the shares in question but anyhow they were transferred in the name of Shri Damani. It was further stated in this letter that the duly endorsed share certificates were, however, not despatched to the transferee till date.

ALTHOUGH a prompt inquiry into matter was promised by M.C.S Ltd. but the complainant was neither informed of any result of such inquiry nor was he delivered the share certificate(s). He, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the District Forum at Jaisalmer, Notices of the complaint were duly served upon the present Appellants and M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay (O.P. No. 3). Shri Damani (O.P. No. 4) had been sent notice through registered AD, which was not returned served or unserved. He did not appear. No body except O.P. No. 2 (co-appellant No. 2-Branch of SBI, Jaisalmer) put in appearance before the District Forum. The Branch Manager of SBI at Jaisalmer filed a written reply wherein it was specifically mentioned that as soon as the authorities concerned of the SBI came to know of the mischief played by someone in connivance with postal authorities, SBI, Bombay did not transfer the shares in question in the name of the alleged transferee, Shri Damani, and that the share certificate was lying with them and such certificate could not be delivered to the complainant so far as MCS Ltd., Bombay had not sent the original share certificate and other related documents to the SBI, Bombay/Branch Jaisalmer. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the present appellants and M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay- (i) to deliver the share certificates to the complainant within thirty days of its order; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost to him; and (iii) to give all the benefits, earned by the allotted shares during the meanwhile, to him.

The operation/enforcement of the above order was, however, stayed by this Commission, vide its order dated 3.6.1996, at the instance of the appellant.

It was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum grossly erred in regarding the reply filed before it as having been filed on behalf of SBI Branch at Jaisalmer only. It was also submitted in the same continuation that whatever fault or deficiency in rendering service to the complainant was in the present matter, it lay with M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay and the postal authorities and, therefore, no decree should have been passed by the District Forum against the present appellants. We find no force in either of the two limbs of the arguments of the learned Counsel.

THE reply filed before the District Forum, bears the seal of the Manager, Branch of SBI at Jaisalmer and the reply is signed by the Branch Manager through the Counsel Ms. Basanti Mathur, Advocate. THE Vakalatnama, filed by the said Advocate clearly shows that she had been engaged by one Shri Rajesh Vyas s/o. Shri Ramesh Dutta Vyas, Brahmin, r/o. Jaisalmer. THE said Rajesh Vyas had signed the reply. THE Vakalatnama does not mention that Smt. Mathur had been engaged by SBI, Bombay also through the Officer-in-charge of the case or that Shri Rajesh Vyas had been appointed as Officer-in-charge of the case. THE plea raised by the learned Counsel thus finds no support from any material on record and is rejected. Insofar as the other limb of the argument of the learned Counsel is concerned, we may simply point out that M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay was stated to be SBI''s agent in the matter of despatching the certificates of the allotted shares to the allottees and to register transfer of shares by the allottees/their assignees, etc. Curiously enough neither the said M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay nor the alleged transferee, Shri Damani, who were O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 respectively before the District Forum, was made party to this appeal. No plausible explanation in that behalf was also offered by the appellants. Under such circumstance, this limb of learned Counsel''s argument is found without any force.

DESPITE the above factual position on record and ignoring the conduct of the appellant, we are of the opinion that mere technical and formal defects should not deprive a party of his right of hearing. Since transaction of public money is involved in this case and, prima facie, it appears that due to act of negligence and rendering deficient services by the servants/employees/agent of SBI, a real allottee of the shares has been deprived of his legitimate due since long, the appellants should be given proper opportunity to file their reply and support such reply with evidence before the Forum. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Forum, Jaisalmer to decide the complaint of the respondent according to law within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it on 28.7.2003 after providing proper opportunity of being heard to them, which opportunity shall include filing of reply and evidence by the appellants, subject to the following conditions: (1) The appellant would first comply with all the three directions of the District Forum, as contained in the impugned order, and (2) Shall pay cost at Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant.

In the event of appellants failing in complying with the above conditions within a period of one month from the date of service of this order on them, this appeal shall stand dismissed with cost at Rs. 5,000 with no further reference to the Commission. The cost shall go to the Legal Aid Cell of Rajasthan State Commission Bar Association, Jaipur. Appeal disposed of.