AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 58 of 2010 Ohmez Indegeneous Drugs and Research India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Appu & 2 Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased 1000 shares of OP No. 1/petitioner for Rs.1,00,000/ - and share certificate No. 359, 373, 395 and 398 were issued. It was further alleged that at the time of deposit, complainant was assured to get Rs.25,000/ - as dividend every year and share amount shall be considered as deposit. OP failed to pay any dividend inspite of demand. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs did not appear before District Forum and they were proceeded ex -parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund the amount with 12% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
NONE appeared for Respondent No. 2 and 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no proof of depositing amount by the complainant with petitioner and inspite of proof that amount was invested in shares and there was no relationship of consumer and service provider, learned District Forum committed mistake in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that amount was deposited with the petitioner and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
PERUSAL of complaint clearly reveals that OP enticed complainant to become shareholder of the Company and he was assured to get dividend on share deposit. Complainant specifically stated in the complaint that 1,000/ - shares were allotted to him. Share certificates issued by OP also shows that complainant was allotted 1000 shares of OP No. 1 bearing Certificate Nos. 359, 373, 395 and 398.
BY no stretch of imagination, amount invested by complainant in the purchase of shares can be treated as deposit with OP No. 1. As far dividend is concerned, no Company can assure grant of dividend because dividend depends on profits in the Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite all attempts, Company collapsed due to loss. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to distribute dividend. As amount invested by complainant in obtaining shares of the petitioner, investment in shares cannot be treated as amount deposited with the Company and complainant is not entitled to get refund of amount invested in shares.
APPARENTLY , there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP as complainant has invested this amount in purchasing shares of OP No. 1 and in such circumstances, in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Morgan Stainley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, 1994 4 SCC 225 complainant does not fall within purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
COMPLAINAN T is free to approach Company Law Board or any other authority for initiating action against OP No. 1, but complaint filed by complainant before Consumer Fora is not maintainable. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition is to be allowed.
CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 25.1.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 58 of 2010 Ohmez Indegeneous Drugs and Research India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Appu & 2 Ors. and order of District Forum dated 9.12.2008 in CC NO. 1222/05 Appu Vs. Ohmez Indegeneous Drugs and Research India Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.