NISHANT SECURITIES Vs. SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision challenge is to the order dated 3.5.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State dismissing, appeal against the order 23.7.2004 of a District Forum.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2/O.P. No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1/O.P. No. 1 firm. Respondent who was having business with petitioners filed complaint inter alia, alleging that he transferred 138 shares of Ranbaxy Company Ltd., in favour of petitioner No. 1 firm on 30.5.2002 though HFC Bank with the condition that these could be sold only when the value of shares reaches Rs. 1,000. In the meantime company declared 82 bonus shares. Accordingly, respondent instructed petitioner No. 2 not to sell the shares and transfer 220 shares (138+82) to his D. Mat Account along with other shares of HFCL and TATA Chemicals. Contrary to instructions the petitioners sold the shares on 13.1.203 for Rs. 1,38,520.80. Respondent attributed deficiency in service on part of petitioners in transferring the shares in his D. Mat account and/or not paying the said amount to him. Petitioners were proceeded ex parte on 29.9.2003 by the District Forum as the notice sent to them was returned with the postal remark 'Not claimed'. On basis of evidence/documents filed by respondent the complaint was allowed with direction to the petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 1,38,520.80 with interest @ 9% per annum from date of sale of share i.e., 13.1.2003. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challenge.

(3.) Contention advanced by Mr. Mohan Chowksey for petitioners was that the petitioners were not served with the notice in complaint sufficiently, orders were passed by Fora below without considering the defence for the petitioners as reflected by way of ground No. 10 of the present revision petition. To be only noted that there was time gap of more than 9 months in between petitioners having been proceeded ex parte and the District Forum passing the order dated 23.7.2004. As may be seen from ground No. 9 taken in revision petition, the petitioners knew of the envelope having been returned with the remark 'Not claimed'. That being so, there was enough opportunity for the petitioners to appear and contest the complaint before it came to be decided finally by the District Forum. Further, defence as reflected by way of said ground No. 10 could not have been taken into consideration by the District Forum as petitioners were ex parte. That defence cannot be looked into at this stage. District Forum had rightly passed the order dated 23.7.2004 based on the evidence adduced before it by the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed