(1.) Manish Sahni, complainant for short, applied for allotment of 100 equity shares of Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI) respondent No.2. For the purpose, he made Application No.0426399 dated 8.12.1993 alongwith application money of Rs.3,500/-in the form of a cheque. The application was submitted in me State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, respondent No.1 and the receipt thereon was endorsed by putting stamp of the State Bank of India. The complainant failed to receive any allotment advice. He, therefore, wrote to respondent No.2. He was informed that no application had been received from the applicant through respondent No.1. The complainant approached District Forum-II claiming compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service. The plea of the State Bank of India, respondent No.1 was that no application was received from the complainant and there was no privity of contract with the complainant. Respondent No.2 also denied having received any application for allotment. District Forum-II held that the complainant failed to establish conclusively that he had submitted the application. It was further held that there was no hiring of services for consideration and, consequently, there was no privity of contract between respondent No.1 and the complainant. The complaint was, accordingly, dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. We have heard the representative of the appellant and Counsel for respondent No.1 and have carefully gone through the records.
(2.) Mr. O. P. Sahni submitted that, in fact, three applications had been made. One by Mr. O. P. Sahni, the other one by his son Manish Sahni and the third one by his wife Smt. Vimla Sahni. Whereas two other applications made by him and his wife had been accounted for and his wife was allotted some shares, his son's application was misplaced by the State Bank of India with the result that the complainant was deprived of the chance of being allotted any share. He had, thus, suffered monitarily as well as mentally. The original receipts were produced for our perusal. These have been torn from the printed application form and bear the stamp in token of receipt by the Receiving Bank. The case of the complainant was supported by his affidavit. There is no reason why the complainant should be dis-believed that he did make the application as averred by him. The approach adopted by District Forum II in dismissing the complaint was erroneous. It is well settled law that wherein in criminal proceedings material facts have to be established beyond reasonable doubt, the degree of proof in civil matters is on pre-ponderance of probability. There is no such thing as conclusive proof. The District Forum, therefore, fell into a serious error by expecting the complainant to prove conclusively that application for allotment of shares had been handed over to the Bank by the complainant. The finding of the District Forum that there was no hiring of services for consideration, is again wrong. It is well-known that the Bank, in collecting forms for a public issue, receives commission from the company issuing the shares and the beneficiary is the person who makes the application. The services rendered by the Bank are, thus, not free of charge and it cannot be disputed that the applicant is the beneficiary of such services. Mr. Sahni invited our attention to Ram Lal Wadhwa V/s. Bank of Baroda, 1994 2 CPJ 618 in which, on a consideration of substantially similar facts and circumstances the State Commission of Punjab awarded compensation amounting to Rs.2,500/on the ground that because of negligence of the Bank, the applicant, complainant had been deprived of the chance of being considered for allotment of shares.
(3.) On behalf of the Bank Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh contended that the Bank had no personal animosity against the complainant. All applications, which were received, were duly accounted for. The fact that two other applications made by other members of the family of the complainant were received and forwarded to the company showed that only two applications were made. If the third application i. e. the application in question, had been made, there is no reason why the same should not have been forwarded to the company.