9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of Bank of Madura with distinctive numbers 636731 and 630930. Those shares were sought to be sold in the share market by the said Vedanayaki through his son R. Arunachalam, the complainant. These shares were sought to be sold at the rate of Rs. 195 per share. The opposite party, when contacted by the complainant, agreed to sell those shares at the said price. The transaction was confirmed by a memo of confirmation bearing No. 149 dated 10-12-1992 issued by the opposite parties. Subsequently, the opposite parties issued a voucher selling the shares at the rate of Rs. 123.75 per share and agreed to pay Rs. 24,750 on 25-1-1993. In spite of repeated demands, the opposite parties did not at all pay the amount to the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties, he would stay, would amount to deficiency in service on their part. 6. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below and filed the complaint for certain reliefs as prayed for. 7. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that the complainant is not at all a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the Act ). The complaint filed as such is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that arises for consideration in this action is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ? 14. It is the first and foremost contention of the opposite parties that the complainant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cannot at all be construed as a consumer. To this sort of a contention, we are unable to affix our seal of approval, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The shares in question admittedly stood in the name of one Vedanayaki, the mother of the complainant. It is a notorious fact which is being capable of taken judicial notice of that the shares in the stock market are sold mainly on instructions oral, through telephone and on a few rare occasions the transactions of selling and purchase take place by way of written instructions. In the case on hand, the 200 shares belonging to the mother of the complainant were sought to be sold through the medium of the share brokers, the opposite parties at a specified rate per share. The rate agreed to be sold per share was at Rs. 195 and on this aspect of the matter, the opposite parties issued a memo Ex. A1 dated 10-10-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbrated under section 24A of the Act, the complaint filed as such far beyond the period of two years after the arising of cause of action is barred by limitation. This sort of a contention appears to be credible on the face of it. The utter untenability of such a submission would get exposed, little bit of a probe if made into such submission. Section 24A, came into force only on 18-6-1996 and under this section, the period of limitation for filing complaint had been fixed at two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. In the case on hand, the cause of action did not arise on 10-10-1992 but arose on 25-1-1993 long before section 24A of the Act came into force. 20. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture, a decision arising from this Commission in the case of Apex Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank [1995] (1) CPR 468. In that case, the Commission took the view that the complaint under the Act, in respect of claims for which the cause of action arose before the amendment of the Act on 18-6-1993, can be filed within the original period of limitation, i.e., within a period of 3 years from the time when the cause of action arose . In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the circumstances of the case. We have already decided that the complainant himself is having the locus standi to file the complaint in the sense of himself being construed as the owner of the shares and the said shares were entrusted to the opposite parties for the purpose of sale for consideration. Therefore, this argument, as such, has to necessarily fail. 23. The last but not the least of the arguments as projected by learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that the Forum below has no power at all to order for the return of the share certificates entrusted to the opposite parties and such sort of a relief is capable of being claimed elsewhere for specific performance. In support of such a submission, relief is sought to be placed upon the decision in the case of G. Krishnamurthi Chetty v. K.V. Chowdhary 1995 (2) CPR Page 556. In that case, the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh, by taking into consider- ation the salient provisions adumbrated under sections 2 and 14 of the Act, took the view, on the facts and circumstances of the said case, that the district fora has no power at all to issue a direction for the delivery of the shares and the remedy lies els ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund the price of the goods. 24. In the case on hand, the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 24,750 representing the value of the shares at the rate of Rs. 123.75 per share for 200 shares with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 25-1-1993 till the date of payment or to return the 200 shares apart from granting other incidental reliefs. The question that arises for consideration is whether the option of the return of the shares is permissible, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ? Since the shares had been sold out in favour of third party by the opposite parties, share brokers, the question of issuing any direction to them for the return of the shares is in the very nature of thing not feasible or possible. Such being the case, the relief capable of being granted on the factual matrix of the case on hand is to issue a direction for the payment of the value of the shares which had been quantified in a sum of Rs. 24,750 with appropriate interest as ordered by the Forum below. Therefore, we are of the view that though the Forum below has the necessary and requisite power to order for the return of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
