G.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD vs METTA RAJYA LAKSHMI

THE unsuccessful opposite parties in C.D. No. 209/99 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam, are the appellants before this Commission.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant has entrusted share certificates of 50 shares issued by the State Bank of India to the opposite parties. THE first opposite party paid Rs. 2,500/- towards advance and promised to sell the shares and remit the balance amount. At that time, the market value of each share was Rs. 293/-. THE first opposite party did not pay the balance of the amount. THE complainant gave a report to the police and the second opposite party, the brother-in-law of the first opposite party attended the police station and assured that he would pay an amount to a tune of Rs. 10,000/- and paid Rs. 1,000/- on 2.7.1998 and promised to pay the balance amount in nine monthly instalments. THEreafter he paid Rs. 2,000/- i.e., in all Rs. 3,000/- but subsequently failed to pay any amount. THE complainant thereupon approached the District Forum to direct both the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with interest at 24 per cent per annum from 13.4.1998 till the date of payment and damages of Rs. 5,000/-. The first opposite party filed his written version claiming that he paid the entire amount to the complainant and no balance need be paid to her. It is further alleged that when the first and second opposite parties went to the police station, on the complaint given by the complainant, the police obtained the signature of opposite party No. 2 on a blank paper and fabricated acknowledgement of the second opposite party on the said paper. The second opposite party never paid Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. The first opposite party paid Rs. 2,500/- towards advance and the complainant gave shares to him and promised to sell the shares and remit the balance.

Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum found that there was deficiency of service and directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 10,600/- with interest at 24 per cent per annum from 13.4.1998 till the date of payment, besides cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said finding and order, both the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? The case of the complainant is that she gave 50 shares of State Bank of India for sale to the first opposite party and the first opposite party paid him an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as advance. The price of each share of State Bank of India was Rs. 293/- as on the date when the shares were delivered to the first opposite party. The first opposite party did not pay the amount after the sale of the shares. Thereupon the complainant gave a complaint to the police and the opposite parties 1 and 2 attended the police station and on behalf of opposite party No. 1, opposite party No. 2 paid Rs. 3,000/- and promised to pay the balance in equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, but paid only one instalment and thus in all he paid Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. The first opposite party in his written version denied of the second opposite party paying any amount on his behalf and claims that the police had obtained his signature on a blank paper and might have fabricated the receipt. He admits of receiving the shares and paying an amount of Rs. 2,500/-. Ex. A 1 is the receipt issued by the first opposite party acknowledging the receipt of 50 shares from the complainant. Ex. A-4 is the undertaking given by the second opposite party whereunder he has paid Rs. 1,000/- and promised to pay Rs. 10,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The first opposite party raised a plea that there was no evidence that as on the date of delivery of the shares to the first opposite party, the prevailing rate was Rs. 293/- per share. The complainant obtained an acknowledgement from the first opposite party whereunder it is clearly mentioned, by the first opposite party, under his signature that the rate per share was Rs. 293.85 ps. In the face of Ex. A-1, the first opposite party cannot raise a plea that the market rate was not Rs. 283.85 ps. on 13.4.1998. Therefore, the contention of the first opposite party cannot be countenanced. He admitted that he paid Rs. 2,500/- on the date when the complainant delivered the shares to him, but contended that he sold away the shares at Rs. 50/- per share and paid Rs. 2,500 to the complainant. When the prevailing rate was Rs. 293.85/- ps. on the date when the shares were delivered to him, the first opposite party cannot claim that on the same day he sold away the shares at Rs. 50/- per share and paid the entire amount of Rs. 2,500/-, the value of fifty shares. Therefore, the version of the first opposite party is a total lie.

HENCE the first opposite party paid the entire amount, there was no need for the complainant to give a report to the police and the police to call upon the opposite party No. 1 to the police station. The first opposite party admitted in his written version that he went to the police station along with the second opposite party but claims that no undertaking was given by the second opposite party but his signature was obtained on a blank paper and the undertaking was fabricated by the police. There was no need for the police to fabricate such a receipt. Coming to the amount payable by the first opposite party to the complainant, as on the date of delivery of the shares the rate per share was Rs. 293.85 ps. and the first opposite party paid Rs. 2,500/- and the second opposite party paid another sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The first opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 14,650/-. As per the version of the opposite parties the first opposite party paid Rs. 2,500/- at the time of delivery of shares and the second opposite party paid another sum of Rs. 3,000/-, in all Rs. 5,500/- was paid to the complainant and only a balance of Rs. 9,150/- remains to be paid. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 9,150/- with interest at 24 per cent per annum from 13.4.1998 till the date of payment. To the extent indicated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 750/- to the complainant. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal partly allowed.