STATE BANK OF INDORE Vs. C V MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.1998 passed in Case No.329/97 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : The appellant was the collecting agent for the right issue shares of the respondent No.2, at the premium of Rs.150/- per share from the prospective allottees. The respondent No.1/complainant applied for 100 shares and deposited the application money of Rs.6,000/- on 26.11.1992 and Rs.5,000/- on 13.3.1993 as allotment money. The respondent No.1 also deposited a cheque of Rs.5,000/- dated 13.5.1993, the amount of call and final money. The entire money collected was remitted with the list of the depositors to the respondent No.2. By over-sight, the respondent No.1 was shown at Serial No.86. This defaulter was shown at Serial 101 in place of the respondent No.1 and was allotted the shares. The respondent No.1 made a complaint. On verification the error was found, therefore, the appellant sent a revised list to respondent No.2 with a certificate of deposit of the amount. On this, the respondent No.2 issued fully stamped paid shares. However, later-on respondent No.2 forfeited the shares and the amount of respondent No.1 in view of the fact that the shares were issued to the defaulter who ought to have been shown at Serial No.86. The respondent No.1 filed the complaint, which was resisted. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence held that the amount deposited by the respondent No.1 was shown at the Serial No.86 who was a defaulter while the respondent No.1 was at Serial number 101, in whose place the name of the person who was at Serial No.86 was shown in the list. As a result of which the right issue was not issued and the amount deposited was forfeited for no fault of the complainant, due to mistake and fault of the appellant. Though, the appellant corrected the mistake but the respondent No.2 did not pay any heed, hence, for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant amount deposited of Rs.16,000/- was ordered to be returned with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p. a. from 20.1.1994 alongwith Rs.1,000/- compensation and costs.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after enquiry the mistake was corrected and accordingly, the respondent No.2 was intimated, who issued stamped paid shares, which later-on were cancelled and the amount was forfeited. If the shares were issued to the person at Serial Number 86, a defaulter, the respondent No.2 ought to have taken action against the said person for realisation of the amount and/or for cancellation of shares issued to him. In the circumstances the complainant was not entitled to realise the amount from the appellant as the mistake was rectified. Besides the appellant was merely a collecting agent on behalf of the respondent No.2, hence, no liability could be fastened on the appellant in view of Sec.230 of the Indian Contract Act.