B. SUBBARAO Vs. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Complainant questions the correctness and legality of order dated 28.05.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First appeal No. 1680 of 2005. By the impugned order, the State Commission while allowing his Appeal, has directed Respondent No. 1, M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; and its Registrar for Shares, Respondent No. 2 herein, to refund an amount of Rs. 26,000/-, representing the value of 100 equity shares, originally held by the Petitioner in the said Company, together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the mental agony as also for the loss suffered by him on account of fluctuations in the share market.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts leading to the filing of the Revision Petition are that the Petitioner was holding 100 Shares of the face value of Rs. 10/- each of Respondent No. 1 Company. The Share Certificate was in the physical form. According to the Petitioner, he lost the Share Certificate and accordingly, vide his letter dated 02.02.1999, reported the matter to the Company, praying for issuance of a Duplicate Share Certificate. Vide its letter dated 13.02.1999, the Company while informing the Petitioner that "they have marked necessary caution in the shares" advised him to lodge a complaint with the nearest Police Station for the loss of Share Certificate and send to them a copy of the FIR along with an Indemnity Bond and affidavit in the prescribed format, enclosed therewith, so as to enable it to place the same before the Board of Directors for their approval and to issue the duplicate Share Certificate. A certificate for lodging the FIR was issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.08.1999 and accordingly, vide his letter dated 29.12.1999, the Petitioner furnished all the requisite documents, by Registered A/D Post, which was acknowledged by the Company vide letter dated 06.01.2000. It seems that in the meanwhile, on 17.02.2000, the Company received the original Share Certificate along with Share Transfer Certificate and affidavit, purportedly sworn by the Petitioner, from Respondent No. 3 for transfer of Shares in his favour. Acting, rather swiftly, the Company claims to have transferred the Shares on 23.03.2000 in the name of Respondent No. 3. Having waited for the response from the Company to his request for issue of duplicate certificate, for sufficient time, on 25.05.2000 the Petitioner issued a reminder to the Company, again requesting them to do the needful at the earliest. While the Petitioner was waiting for the Duplicate Share Certificate, responding to Petitioner's Letter dated 25.05.2000, Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 16.06.2000, informed him that the Shares held by him, had already been transferred in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 23.03.2000. Contending that he had never approached the Company for transfer of Shares in question in favour of Respondent No. 3; the affidavit, alleged to have been sworn by him for transfer of the said Shares was fabricated; the details mentioned on the concerned documents were not his; and the signatures on the documents were forged, on 10.07.2000 the Petitioner issued a legal notice to all the Respondents calling upon them to issue Duplicate Share Certificate within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Since there was no positive response from the Respondents, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Respondents No. 1 & 2, in not issuing duplicate Share Certificate and transferring the Shares in the name of Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner filed a Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a direction to Respondent No. 1/Company to: (i) issue duplicate Share Certificate; (ii) pay Dividend declared on the shares from the years 1999 onwards with interest; (iii) cancel the transfer of shares in the name of Respondent No. 3 and (iv) pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with cost of litigation.

(3.) The District Forum, however, opined that since the dispute related to transfer of shares, it was covered by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and further, dispute also involved verification of signatures, it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Consequently, the District Forum granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach appropriate Court for redressal of his grievance.