AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, the Original Complainant, has filed this Revision Petition against the Order dated 1.9.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 787/2009 whereby the State Commission affirming the Order dated 22.6.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Rajkot (for short “the District Forum”) has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. The District Forum, vide its order dated 22.06.2019, had dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Petitioner herein.
Facts giving rise to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum, in short, are that the Complainant was allotted debentures by the Respondent/ Opposite Party in the Complaint through Public Issue. The Petitioner/Complainant paid the allotment money as well as the First Call Money and the other instalments were due. Because of her illness (paralysis), Petitioner could not deposit the rest of the amount. She, thereafter, wrote letters to the Respondent to deposit of the pending amount with interest, to which Respondent did not respond. On 19.11.2003, Petitioner sent a Demand Draft of ₹750/- towards the payment of the Call Money, which was returned by the Respondent stating that as the Second and Final Call Money were not paid in time, the debentures had been forfeited. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, Petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum praying for a direction to the Respondent to accept the Draft of ₹750/- with interest till 19/11/2003 and issue converted debenture share; to give dividend, bonus and also other benefits on the said debenture shares; ₹3000/- towards to and fro travel to Mumbai and ₹4000/- towards loss of shares. Besides these, she has claimed litigation expenses and ₹100/- towards court fee.
Upon notice, Respondent entered appearance and contested the Complaint. In the Written Statement, it was stated that the Petitioner was allotted 10 fully convertible debentures in 1989 and paid the Allotment Money and First Call Money and 30 shares on conversion were allotted to her (20 Shares on first and 10 Shares on second conversion). 20 shares representing third conversion were not issued as the debentures were forfeited on account of non-payment of Second and Final Call Money. It was further stated that although the last date for payment of this call was 28.8.1992, but the Company was accepting the outstanding call monies till 24.10.2003 as a gesture of goodwill. Consequently, Final Forfeiture Notice dated 24.9.2003 was sent to the Petitioner by Registered Post. The Board of Directors forfeited the debentures to the extent outstanding for non-payment of Call money on 21.11.2003, almost one month after 24.10.2003, the last date fixed for receipt of the outstanding call monies. The Petitioner’s demand draft was received on 21.11.2003, which was returned to her on 10.12.2003 stating that the Debentures had been forfeited on account of non-payment of Final Call in due time. The same draft was again received by the Respondent on 23.1.2004 but was again returned to the Complainant on 28.1.2004 with the reasons for not accepting it. It was also stated that because of non-payment of Call Money, debentures were forfeited and got extinguished, therefore, the question of allotment of shares does not arise.
Upon proper appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that since the Petitioner had failed to pay the Call Money in due time, the debentures issued to her were forfeited by the Respondent and therefore, there was no question of allotment of Shares to her and accordingly dismissed the Complaint. The District Forum observed as under:-
“ The Complainant has submitted that the Complainant had made oral request for the amount to be paid and also wrote letters for the same dated 27.08.01, 23.09.03 and 04.11.02. It is pertinent to note that there is no such letter dated 23.09.03 on record. The other two letters as discussed earlier are not with regard to the amount to be paid but are forms requesting for issuance of duplicate certificate. The Complainant has further submitted that the said debentures were convertible debentures with 12.5% interest and are secured and cannot be forfeited as per the Rules and conditions of the Company and that the Opponent had to serve a legal notice and intimate the Complainant before forfeiting the debentures as per the law. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant has not pleaded as such in the Complaint produced at Ex.1 and has raised such contention for the first time in Written Submissions. However, the Complainant has not been able to show any such specific Rules, Conditions or law as relied upon by the Complainant with regard to the contention raised. Hence, the bare words are not acceptable.
It is evident from record and as admitted by the Complainant, that there was considerable delay in payment of call money and that act of Complainant resulted in the forfeiture of the debentures and no act or omission on the part of the Opponent is attributable for the same. Hence, considering the facts and evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the Complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent. Therefore, we decide issue no.1 in negative.
The Complainant has prayed that the debentures be converted to fully paid share. The Opponent has denied for the same as the debentures were forfeited on account of non-payment of call money. As discussed earlier, as the Complainant failed to pay the call money, therefore, debentures were forfeited, hence, there is no question of allotting shares to the Complainant.”
Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, preferred Appeal before the State Commission, which has also been dismissed by it confirming the finding of facts returned by the District Forum.
Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Complainant.
We have heard the Complainant appearing in person to some length. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent Company.
Complainant submitted that she applied for and was allotted 10 fully convertible and secured Debentures. She was required to pay ₹3,000/- vide four Call Money Notices. She had already paid ₹2250/- vide 3 Call Notices and missed one final Call Notice for ₹750/-. It is further submitted by her that she wrote number of letters to the Opposite Party and visited personally to their office with a request to accept the unpaid Call Money. She also submitted that the Opposite Party agreed to accept the unpaid amount with interest but the amount of interest was not informed to her and accordingly, she sent an amount of ₹750/- through demand draft to the Opposite Party on 19.11.2003, however the said amount was returned by the Company. It is also pleaded that the Opposite Party Company has not followed the procedure for forfeiting the debentures.
Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Complainant we are of the considered opinion that none of the submissions made by her deserves any merit. The Complainant was allotted 10 fully Convertible Debentures in the year 1989 for which a sum of ₹3000/- was required to be paid in four Money Calls. She paid a sum of ₹2,250/- in three calls and accordingly 30 shares on conversion were allotted to her. However, according to the Complainant’s own admission, she could not pay the balance amount of ₹750/- at the due time which resultant in forfeiture of the Debentures. There is concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora Below that the last date of receiving the balance amount was 28.08.1992 though the Opposite Party Company was accepting the outstanding money till 24.10.2003 as a gesture of goodwill. The Complainant sent the Draft of the balance amount of ₹750/- to the Opposite Party on 19.11.2003 which was received by them on 21.11.2003. Since the due amount was not paid in time, the Debentures issued to the Complainants were forfeited by the Opposite Party and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the Fora below is based on due appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties and it does not call for any interference from us under limited Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 of the Act.
Even otherwise, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Orders passed by the Fora Below in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the 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 illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. - (2022) 9 SCC 31 while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269 that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-
“ At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the Fora below in Revisional Jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no Order as to costs.