AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21 (b) & 22 (a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.03.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1119 of 2013 in which order dated 15.10.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Distt. New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 1406 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders of State Commission and remanding the case back to the State Commission to be heard on merit and directing the OP-1 & OP-2 to allocate right of preferential shares of 48 shares and additional 2 shares as opted by the complainant or to pay market value of shares.
While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum, Respondents- 1 & 2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1 & OP-2) were R-1 and R-2 before the State Commission and OP-1 & OP-2 before the District Forum.
Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 04.07.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 05.07.2019 (Petitioner), 19.10.2023 (R-1) and 05.10.2023 (R-2).
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
(i) The complainant was a shareholder of M/s Trent Ltd. (R-1/OP-1). Applications for convertible shares were invited by OP-1 through certain brokers. HDFC Bank – OP-2 was one such broker. Complainant applied for 50 shares and deposited an amount of Rs.27,500/- with the application form sent through OP-2.
(ii) Grievance of the complainant is that the application was rejected by OP-1 on the ground that the same did not mention the PAN/GIR No. and application money was returned to the complainant through OP-2 as PAN/GIR No. was mandatory requirement.
(iii) The OPs have simultaneously misled the complainant by offering to allot additional shares without actually allotting none to him. The OPs have done with the sole motive fraudulent enrich themselves at the cost of complainant through unfair activities. Hence, complainant finally served legal notice on 08.09.2010 to OPs.
Vide Order dated 9.9.2013 in the CC no. 1406 of 2010, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the following grounds :
“(i) The OP-1 in its rely has reiterated the grounds of rejection stating that the application form itself mentioned that mention of PAN/GIR No. was mandatory and application may be rejected if application is incomplete. Accordingly, complainant was informed and his application money returned.
(ii) We have considered all the facts and do not find any deficiency on the part of OP-1 & OP-2. The complaint is dismissed.”
Aggrieved by the said Order of District Forum, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 8.3.2018 in FA No. 1119/2013 has dismissed the appeal.
Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 8.3.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:
i. The learned Member could not appreciate the deficiency by not allotting right shares to the complainant on bogus and deceitful lame allegation of PAN card no. that is in the record of OP files and with the application for over the years.
ii. The ground of not disclosing the PAN/GIR No.ACNPS3634B which information is already with the OP-Company for last many years as the petitioner is existing Shareholder on the basis of which the OP calculated the No. of shares to be offered to the complainant.
iii. The complainant was not allotted any of the shares he was legally rightfully entitled.The market value of the share during the period was in the range of Rs.1250/-.The market value of the right shares applied 50 shares Rs.62,500/-.
iv. Both the consumer Fora has not only ignored the basic facts of the complaint but at the same time have violated well laid laws of National Commission in its judgments M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Dr.B.P.Gayathri & Anr. in RP No. 3921/2006 dated 7.8.2012 and also judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vimal bvChandra Grover Vs. Bank of India dated 26.4.2000 (2000) 5 SCC 122.It is basic factor to understand law to decide the issue in the complaint case.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
8.1 The Petitioner contends that the District Forum could not differentiate the Right shares and Equity shares and orders passed on the procedure of equity shares. A right issue when a company issues to its existing shareholders, a right to buy additional shares in the company. The company offers the shareholders, a specific numbers of shares at a specific price. The company will also set a time limit for the shareholders, a specific numbers of shares at a specific price. There is breach of trust and conditions of offer of right shares by the OPs and denial of statutory obligation on the part of OPs in whose concern the complainant has invested his hard earned money. No notice has been sent about PAN number. It is calculative after thought decision to deceive the complainant on false allegations as the complainant is a bonafide shareholder of the organization-Company.
8.2 The OP-1/R-1 contends that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. The complainant is not a “Consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had applied for allotment of Cumulative Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) issued by the OP-1 for the purpose of commercial trading in the shares, if allotted; and thus, the purpose of application for allotment of 50 no. of equity shares is absolutely commercial and therefore, any dispute arising out of the said purpose cannot be terms as a consumer dispute as alleged by the complainant.
8.3 It is specifically mentioned that complainant had applied for CCPS in OP-1 Company with open eyes and only after exercising due diligence and careful consideration of the contents of the Abridged Letter of Offer dated 20.7.2010; and thereby specifically agreed to the terms and conditions of the offer. The terms and conditions as contained in the Abridged Letter of Offer and Composite Application Forum unambiguously and unequivocally states that the Application without PAN will be considered incomplete and are liable to be rejected. It was due to the fault on the part of the complainant that allotment of shares was not made and the complainant is estopped by his own conduct.
8.4 The OP-2/R-2 contends that they refunded the amount of Rs.27,500/- paid by the petitioner, as soon as the petitioner’s Application was rejected by OP-1 as the same did not mention the PAN/GIR No., which was a pre-requisite for allotment of shares. The State Commission in its order has correctly observed that the Complainant/Appellant has alleged that “the District Forum encouraged the illegal sale of right shares in the market. The allegation is vague and not supported by any material.” OP-2 has discharged its duty of refunding the amount of Rs.27,500/- which has been received by them from the petitioner and no further duty of the OP-2 subsists qua the petitioner.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and District Forum. In this case there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Both the State Commission and District Forum have given well-reasoned orders and we are in agreement with their findings. Submission of PAN No. as required in the application is a mandatory condition and the Petitioner was obligated to provide this detail. The contention of the Petitioner that Respondent already have his PAN No. in their records is not a valid ground. Without PAN No. the application submitted was an incomplete one and the Respondent was justified in rejecting the application. In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.