MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Vs. B.P. GAYATHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of both the revision petitions filed against the common impugned order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission' for short) in respect of consumer complaint bearing No.CD/313/2003 filed by the petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) B.P. Gayathri. Respondents herein were OPs 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively before the District Forum. The parties in this order have been referred to according to their status in revision petition No.2702/2006.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case are that in the month of June, 2003, first respondent had issued an advertisement offering equity shares of the Maruthi Udyog Ltd. (which name has since been changed to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) by way of public offer under disinvestment process of this public sector undertaking by Government of India on the basis of bid-cum-offer sale. The Government of India appointed respondent No.2 as Registrar to the issue/offer and respondents 3 & 4 as Book Running Lead Managers/Co-Book Running Lead Managers. The 3rd & 4th respondents, therefore, were bankers through whom the applications were to be forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The investors were required to submit their applications alongwith the money @ Rs.115/- per share. The final price of the shares and the number of shares to be allotted to the applicants, were to be decided by the Lead Managers. The petitioner had applied for 1000 shares by depositing a cheque for Rs.1,15,000/- During August, 2003, the petitioner was allotted 50 shares and got refund of Rs.5,250/- through a pay order. The shares were allotted at the price of Rs.125/- per share. As the total amount according to this way came to only Rs.11,500/- whereas the petitioner had paid Rs.1,15,000/- alongwith her application for 1000 shares, she made several attempts to get the clarification as to why this short payment was made to her. After several enquiries/letters, finally she was informed by respondent No.2 that due to an error in the bank schedule sent by respondent No.3, she had been allotted only 50 shares and refunded Rs.5,250/- (totaling to Rs.11,500/-) whereas another investor who had applied for 100 shares and had remitted only Rs.11,500/- was allotted 50 shares but refunded Rs.1,08,750 /-. After some further correspondence, the petitioner was able to obtain a copy of the bank statement sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. From this statement, it was seen that respondent No.3 had shown only Rs.11,500/- as the amount paid by the petitioner and in the column showing the number of shares applied for, such number applied for was shown as 100 shares. In the case of the other investor, Chandrahas, the amount paid was shown as Rs.1,15,000/- and the number of shares applied for were shown as 100. Because of the occurrence of this mistake on the part of respondent No.3, the application money of the petitioner was wrongly shown as Rs.11,500/- instead of Rs.1,15,000/- and that of the other investor, Chandrahas was shown as Rs.1,15,000/- instead of Rs.11,500/-. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant was that this negligent act of respondent No.3 amounted to deficiency in service on account of which the petitioner lost the chance of being in possession of 350 shares and refund of Rs.71,250/- out of which she could have purchased another 300 shares from the share market @ Rs.215/- prevalent in August, 2003. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 who was the Registrar of the issue and who had received the bank statement and share applications from the banker to the issue i.e. respondent No.3, was required to render service as per the SEBI guidelines and hence while acting as the Registrar to the issue it ought to have verified the applications as to the number of shares applied for and the amount as mentioned in the applications. Its negligence in not discharging the obligations of the Registrar to the issue, had not only resulted in allotment of only 50 shares to the petitioner against her entitlement to allotment of 350 shares and refund of Rs.71,250/- but also excess refund of Rs.1,08,750/- to 3rd party, namely, Chandrahas, who had applied for 100 shares for which he remitted only Rs.11,500/- alongwith his application.

(3.) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents 2 & 3, she lodged her complaint before the District Forum praying for allotment of shares, compensation, cost etc.