SWETA PRADIP POPAT Vs. LARSON & TUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the Original Complainant, has filed this Revision Petition against the Order dtd. 1/9/2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 787/2009 whereby the State Commission affirming the Order dtd. 22/6/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Rajkot (for short "the District Forum") has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. The District Forum, vide its order dtd. 22/6/2019, had dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Petitioner herein.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum, in short, are that the Complainant was allotted debentures by the Respondent/ Opposite Party in the Complaint through Public Issue. The Petitioner/Complainant paid the allotment money as well as the First Call Money and the other instalments were due. Because of her illness (paralysis), Petitioner could not deposit the rest of the amount. She, thereafter, wrote letters to the Respondent to deposit of the pending amount with interest, to which Respondent did not respond. On 19/11/2003, Petitioner sent a Demand Draft of ?750/- towards the payment of the Call Money, which was returned by the Respondent stating that as the Second and Final Call Money were not paid in time, the debentures had been forfeited. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, Petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum praying for a direction to the Respondent to accept the Draft of ?750/- with interest till 19/11/2003 and issue converted debenture share; to give dividend, bonus and also other benefits on the said debenture shares; ?3000/- towards to and fro travel to Mumbai and ?4000/- towards loss of shares. Besides these, she has claimed litigation expenses and ?100/- towards court fee.

(3.) Upon notice, Respondent entered appearance and contested the Complaint. In the Written Statement, it was stated that the Petitioner was allotted 10 fully convertible debentures in 1989 and paid the Allotment Money and First Call Money and 30 shares on conversion were allotted to her (20 Shares on first and 10 Shares on second conversion). 20 shares representing third conversion were not issued as the debentures were forfeited on account of non-payment of Second and Final Call Money. It was further stated that although the last date for payment of this call was 28/8/1992, but the Company was accepting the outstanding call monies till 24/10/2003 as a gesture of goodwill. Consequently, Final Forfeiture Notice dtd. 24/9/2003 was sent to the Petitioner by Registered Post. The Board of Directors forfeited the debentures to the extent outstanding for non-payment of Call money on 21/11/2003, almost one month after 24/10/2003, the last date fixed for receipt of the outstanding call monies. The Petitioner's demand draft was received on 21/11/2003, which was returned to her on 10/12/2003 stating that the Debentures had been forfeited on account of non-payment of Final Call in due time. The same draft was again received by the Respondent on 23/1/2004 but was again returned to the Complainant on 28/1/2004 with the reasons for not accepting it. It was also stated that because of non-payment of Call Money, debentures were forfeited and got extinguished, therefore, the question of allotment of shares does not arise.