SARLA PRASAD Vs. KARVY COMPUTERSHARA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the complaint before State Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that she had purchased 45,300 shares of Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. under folio No.JVS0530483. The said company subsequently merged with Jindal Iron and Steel Company Limited and the merged entity JSW Steel Ltd., the respondent No.2 was incorporated. As per scheme of merger 1890 shares of JSW Steel Ltd. in lieu of 45300 shares held in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited were issued to petitioner vide new folio No, JSW0297722.

(2.) After the issuance of new shares dividend warrant amounting to Rs.5670/- was also issued in her favour. It is stated that despite repeated request of petitioner new shares certificate were not delivered to her, as such she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act before the State Commission seeking various reliefs as are stated in the prayer clause of said complaint. It is stated that the complaint was filed on 13.12.2007, the market value of the shares on that day was Rs. 25,11,810/- and apart from that petitioner had also claimed the dividends on the said shares as well as compensation towards mental harassment and agony suffered by her. It is stated that learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 30.1.2008 transferred the complaint to concerned District Forum for consideration on the ground that the value of share is being assumed by the petitioner on a hypothetical ground as the value of the shares three years before was admittedly lower than what has been claimed. Learned Commission further held that if the District Forum at a final stage is of the view that complainant is entitled for higher compensation the District Forum may refer the claim to State Commission for final adjudication.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of State Commission in transferring the complaint to District Forum, present petition is filed. It is contended that as per Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or the services and compensation, if any, exceeds Rs.20 lacs. It is contended that in the present case the value of the goods i.e. shares exceeds Rs.20 lacs and apart from that petitioner has also claimed dividend and compensation as such the State Commission should not have transferred the matter to District Forum. It is further stated that market value of the goods i.e. shares in the present case has to be seen on the date when the complaint is filed.