M N DASTUR Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was opposite party No. 2 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant. Respondent No. 2 was opposite party No. 1 while respondent No. 3 as opposite party No. 3.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has been carrying on business as broker in shares and securities and was a member of respondent No. 3. Under the Bye-laws and Memorandum of Articles of respondent No. 3 as member the respondent No. 1 was to furnish security either in cash or shares or securities. It was alleged that on 18. 5. 1993, respondent No. 1 purchased from the market 14,000 Master Shares issued by respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 37 per share. On 9. 6. 1993, respondent No. 1 deposited these shares with respondent No. 3 towards security. Along with covering letter dated 9. 6. 2003, respondent No. 3 forwarded the said shares to the petitioner, Registrar and Transfer Agent of respondent No. 2 for transfer thereof in its favour. Out of 14,000 shares the petitioner transferred only 100 shares in the name of respondent No. 3 and did not return the remaining shares. It was stated that in the years 1994-95 respondent No. 2 declared bonus shares. Respondent No. 2 further declared Right Master Shares in the year 1994. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he had become entitled for bonus shares an Right Master Shares for which amount of Rs. 2,79,990 was paid by him. In the complaint direction was sought to the petitioner and to respondent No. 2 to return/issue to respondent No. 3, 13,900 Masters Share, bonus shares declared in 1994-95 and Right Master Shares declared in 1996, dividend warrants for the period 1993-94 and 1994-95 and interest on the dividend amount etc. Petitioner contested the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that State Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and respondent No. 1 was/is not a consumer. Both these objections were decided against the petitioner by the State Commission by the order dated 24. 6. 2005. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

(3.) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar for petitioner was that respondent No. 1 is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on two counts , (i) Master shares in question were purchased for commercial purpose by respondent No. 1 and (ii) shares had become the property of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1 did not have any interest therein. State Commission was of the view that it being a case of rendering of service by the petitioner and the complaint having been filed in the year 1996 the unamended definition of consumer would apply and respondent No. 1 will, thus, be a consumer. We are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission in the matter.