ANAND PRAKASH Vs. A M JOHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the above mentioned 3 appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.3.2000, passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), in Complaint Case No.426/99 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash V/s. Shri B. B. Sharma and Anr. , Complaint Case No.427/1999 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash V/s. Shri B. B. Sharma and Anr. , and Complaint Case No.323/1999 - entitled Shri Anand Prakash V/s. Shri B. B. Sharma and Anr. , the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned three appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Anand Prakash had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs.1.40 lacs, by way of loan, with Shri B. B. Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Finance Limited, who gave him 100 Equity Shares of Indian Rayon Industries Limited; 100 Shares of India Petro-Chemicals Corporation Limited; and 100 Shares of Reliance Industries Limited, as a security against the abovesaid loan amount, advanced to Hoffland Finance Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint that on coming to know that Hoffland Finance Ltd. , of which Shri B. B. Sharma was the Chairman, was closing down, the appellant forwarded the shares for transfer in his own name but the shares were returned by the concerned Companies with the report that the transferor's signatures did not match with the specimen signatures. Thereupon the appellant approached Shri Virender Pal Rastogi, Shri Rajinder Pal and Shri A. M. Johri for execution of fresh transfer deeds which were not executed despite repeated requests. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that no case under the Act is made out by the complainant and no relief under the provisions of the Act can be given to the complainant. On the above ground the learned District Forum has dismissed all the three complaints filed by the appellant before the District Forum. However, the District Forum, while dismissing the complaints, has given the liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate Forum for relief, as he may be advised.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the abovementioned 3 appeals before this Commission, under Sec.15 of the Act.