CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. HARI KISHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Hari Kishan Gupta was a share holder of Haryana Petro Chemicals in which he had 150 shares. Haryana Petro Chemicals had offered 75 shares as right shares to the complainant. The complainant made application for these 75 right shares and for 75 additional shares, in all 150 shares, and sent the application to the Central Bank of India, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur alongwith a demand draft of Rs.3,000/-. The application and the demand draft was sent to the Central Bank by post on 26.3.1991. According to the complainant, the application and the demand draft reached Central Bank of India on 30.3.1991, but the same was not sent by the opposite partybank to Haryana Petro Chemicals and, therefore, the right shares and the additional shares could not be allotted to the complainant. The District Forum, Kota accepted the case of the complainant and awarded to the complainant compensation of Rs.8,640/- and Rs.250/- as costs. Against this order, the opposite party Bank has filed this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. It is clear from the photocopy of the application filed by the complainant that he had submitted an application form for allotting him 75 right shares and 75 additional shares and enclosed with the application a demand draft of Rs.3,000/- dated 25.3.1991. This application form alongwith demand draft was sent to the Central Bank of India, Jaipur and according to the letter of the Post Office, the same was delivered to the Bank on 30.3.1991. It is clear from the letter of the Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd. dated 30.4.1991 that the right issue had closed on 6.4.1991. The Bank did not send the application form and the demand draft despite receipt by it on 30.3.1991.

(3.) It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant did not hire the services of the Bank for consideration and, therefore, the appellant was not a consumer. Haryana Petro Chemicals had hired the services of Central Bank of India for collecting applications for allotment of shares and the share money from the prospective applicants. Haryana Petro Chemicals had paid consideration to the Bank for the purpose. The complainant was beneficiary of these services from the Company. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in Subhash Modi V/s. Union Bank of India and Another, 1993 1 CPJ 461 wherein it was held that an applicant for allotment of shares was beneficiary of the services hired by the Company of the Bank. The complainant was, therefore, a consumer. The Bank did not send the application and Bank draft despite its having received the same on 30.3.1991 and, therefore, there was deficiency in service on its part. As to the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, it may be mentioned that the District Forum has relied upon the price of the shares as on 25.3.1992 on the basis of quotation of rates in Rajasthan Patrika dated 25.3.92. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 29.8.91. The price of the shares of Haryana Petro Chemicals on 25.3.92 was not relevant for determining the compensation. Photo copy of the rates of shares in the capital market as on 26.4.1991 was filed in which the rate of the share was Rs.88/- per share. That alone was relevant in the instant case and not the rate of the shares subsequent to the filing of the complaint on the basis of which the District Forum calculated the compensation. The complainant, therefore, suffered loss at Rs.68/- per share and not Rs.80/- as calculated by the District Forum. The complainant is, therefore, I entitled to get Rs.7,334/- from the opposite party.