SANJEEV JAINAppella vs Reliance Petroleum Ltd.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order dated 30.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 246 of 2000.

THE dispute raised in the complaint case as also in this appeal is about Triple Option Convertible Debentures (for short hereinafter referred to as TOCDs), the details of which have been mentioned in the impugned order in Para 1. THEse TOCDs of the respondent-Company had some defect inasmuch as the some amount was outstanding against these TOCDs regarding the allotment money as well as other call monies. THEse TOCDs were alleged to have been purchased by the appellant from the registered holders against whom the said liability was pending. THE respondents were approached by the appellant for the transfer and registration of TOCDs in his name but the respondents instead of transferring the same forfeited the TOCDs and TOCDs certificates were cancelled, which has been alleged to be deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The District Forum held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint as the offices of both the respondents were situated beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and there was no branch office of the respondents located within the territorial limits of the Forum. The other ground on which the District Forum did not accept the appellants version is that the appellant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act). The appellant did not place on record any evidence regarding their hiring and availing of services of the respondents Company. Apart from this, the question of a clear title in the TOCDs aforesaid was also involved.

The learned Counsel for the appellant in the first place urged that these TOCDs were purchased at Chandigarh from the registered holders of the TOCDs and as such part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was further contended that the complainant after purchasing the TOCDs stepped into the shoes of the registered holders and was entitled to have the TOCDs transferred and registered with the respondents Company which failed to do it and, thereafter, there was deficiency in service on their part.

IN our considered opinion, so far as the deficiency in service is concerned, the District Forum has rightly held that the appellant by purchasing the TOCDs from the registered holders of the TOCDs, did not become the consumer insofar as the respondents-Company are concerned as the appellant himself did not hire or avail the services of the respondents Company nor he was the beneficiary at the time when these TOCDs were purchased by the registered holders, the vendors of the appellant. The registered holders of the aforesaid TOCDs have not been impleaded as a party. It could not be disputed that these shares were defective as payments were outstanding against it and were not paid by the registered holders of the TOCDs. Since the TOCDs were not registered in the name of the appellant, the Company corresponded with the registered holders of the TOCDs and forfeited the same and cancelled the TOCDs certificates. At the time when these TOCDs were purchased, the appellant was not even a potential user of any service hired or availed by the registered holders of the TOCDs.

APART from it, this complaint raises such issues which go to the determination of the title to the TOCDs alleged to have been purchased by the appellant which can appropriately be gone into and decided at a full dressed trial before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The Civil Court can appropriately decide the question of title to these TOCDs and grant a declaration regarding the title of the complainant to these TOCDs and issue mandatory injunction to the respondents. The appellant can implead the registered holders of the TOCDs in the civil suit and may claim refund of the amount from them which he has invested in purchasing the TOCDs, if so advised. Faced with such a situation, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the question of limitation may come up while filing a civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the Civil Court will consider the same and decide the same according to law. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.