I.T.C.LIMITED Vs. KHANAM M.JAVED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals as they arise but of the same order of the District Forum, Shimla dated 26.3.1999. As a result of the said order, the appellant - I.T.C. Limited has been directed and commanded to transfer 100 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 240934320 to 240934419 in the name of the complainant - Khanam M. Javed alongwith all the resultant financial benefits, dividend and other fiscal advantages which had already accrued since may, 1995 within 15 days of receiving the copy of the impugned order. Additionally, it has been saddled with damages amounting to Rs. 15,000/ -, to be paid within the same period and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. The other appeal has been filed by Vinod Kumar Kandei (opposite party No.5) in view of the adverse remarks passed in the impugned order against them.

(2.) The complainant i.e. respondent No. 1 is stated to have purchased 100 equity shares bearing distinctive Nos. 240934320 to 240934419 having certificate No. 192188 of the value of Rs. 23,000/ -from I.T.C. Limited, Investor Service Centre (opposite party No. 1) vide share transfer form dated 17.5.1999, Annexure A -1 from opposite party No.2 which were subsequently deleted alonwith...CITIBANK by an order dated 17.3.1998 by the learned Forum below. The receipt of the sale of such equity shares is Annexure A -2. The complainant then applied for transfer of the equity shares in her name to I.T.C. Limited vide registered letter, Annexure A -3. As per her case, the said appellant i.e. I.T.C. Limited did not send the amended equity shares, showing them to be in her favour pursuant to the transfer of the same in her name as aforementioned. This resulted in protracted correspondence between the parties. Ultimately, the said appellant came up with the explanation that Shri Vinod Kumar Kandei i.e. the other appellant had lodged these equity shares for transfer in his name on 11.5.1995. The appellant No.1 further informed the complainant that the said transfer, in the name of appellant No. 2 had been registered on 14.9.1995. The rest of the sequence of events is mentioned in detail in the impugned order and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that ultimately the said complainant i.e. respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the learned Forum below which has resulted in the impugned order.

(3.) In the reply filed by the appellant No.1 i.e. I.T.C. Limited, a number of preliminary objections were taken, namely, that the complainant is not a consumer under the consumer protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act inasmuch as had not utilized the services of the said appellant nor any consideration passed between the parties, that the dispute raised in the .complaint is not a consumer dispute as between her and appellant No.1, at the most it is in the nature of a civil disputes which would fall within the jurisdiction of a civil court, being a dispute of title of ownership of the shares, in question, that no relief(s) can be granted to the complainant by the consumer court because the relief (s) sought by her can only be done by a company on the direction of the companys law Board and lastly that the complaint discloses complicated questions of facts as allegations of fraud, cheating and connivance have been levelled therein, which is not in the domain of the consumer court. On merit the allegations as contained in the complaint have been broadly denied in the reply of appellant No. 1 - I.T.C. limited. The other appellant i.e. Vinod Kumar Kandei in a separate reply also took more or less similar preliminary objections and did not offer any defence insofar as the merits of the case incorporated in the allegations in the complaint are concerned.