ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The complainant Mahesh Takhtani purchased 50 shares of Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Ltd. (ILSL) from respondent Castrol India Ltd. (Company). As he had lost these share certificates with purchase bill along with some other shares of other companies, he had lodged a complaint in the police station. Castrol India was also intimated of the same through his letter dated 13.1.1987. He had also obtained the stay order from Civil Court on the advice of the company on 26.2.1987 and informed the company about the same. The stand of the company initially was that the shares of bonus issue and right issue declared by the company were given to Mrs. Lalta Gupta.
2. The complainant requested the company to disclose the distinctive numbers and certificate numbers of the Right Shares and Bonus Shares allotted to Mrs. Lalta Gupta.
Case of the opposite parties
3. The stand of the company was that duplicate certificates could be issued to the complainant subject to the following conditions:
(i) Complainant would get a no objection letter from the transfer No. 3 stating that she has no objection in issuing duplicate share certificates in respect of shares sold by her and reported to have been lost:
(ii) Indemnity bond duly executed by the complainant as per draft of respondent No. 1; and
(iii) Complainant has to claim from respondent No. 3 Bonus and Right Shares sent to her.
Decision of the District Forum
4. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the company to give 20 Equity Shares of 1989, on receipt of the price of the same, prevailing in 1989, and to give additional 145 shares to the complainant, which he would have got as bonus shares upto 1995 had he got these 20 Equity Shares in 1995 and also to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for the deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.
Decision of the State Commission
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant and also the company filed cross-appeals before the State Commission of Delhi. According to the State Commission, the perusal of the District Forum order shows that the company had acknowledged letter dated 21.1.1998, sent by the complainant intimating the stay order of the Civil Court, as per their letter dated 12.2.1988 and in spite of this the company insisted the complainant to obtain a no objection certificate from Mrs. Lalta Gupta, who was the original share holder.
6. The State Commission held that it is apparent from the communications of the company dated 12.2.1988 and 20.11.1992 that the company was misleading the complainant about the Bonus Shares and further, that it had sent right shares to Ms. Lalta Gupta the possibility of misappropriation of the aforesaid right shares, therefore, cannot be ruled out. So much so, the company in the affidavit filed on 31.5.1995 had the audacity to say that 128 bonus shares were lying with it and had been delivered to the appellant. According to the State Commission, it is a clearcut case of not only deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice. Therefore, the State Commission did not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the complainant.
7. Regarding the appeal filed by the complainant that he has been deprived of 330 shares, the State Commission did not find any merit as at that relevant time, whatever shares the complainant was entitled to have been granted by the District Forum besides compensation of Rs. 20,000.
Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the company has filed the revision petition.
8. During the course of the hearing on 2.8.2007 we have passed the following order:
Controversy in this revision mainly revolves around the issuance/non-issuance of 20 Right Shares by the petitioner to Mrs. Lalta Gupta who was opposite party No. 3 in the complaint. Having heard Mr. Bajaj at length, we direct the Secretary of the petitioner Company to disclose on affidavit the distinctive numbers of these 20 Right Shares and date and mode of despatch of shares to said Ms. Lalta Gupta before 27.8.2007 on rt which date matter be listed.
9. In response to this Mr. A.H. Mody, Company Secretary and Head Legal had filed an affidavit. Paras 4,5 and 6 of the affidavit is extracted below:
I say that the date of allotment of debentures was 15th November, 1988. The company issued part A allotment letters pertaining to the equity portion which were deemed as share certificates w.e.f., 15th May, 1989 and Part-B Allotment Letter pertaining to the debentures. The date of conversion to quity shares was 15th May, 1989. Since Mrs. Lalta Gupta was holding 160 shares on 1st July, 1988, the Right Application Form for 32 partly convertible Debentures were sent to her. The right was exercised by Mrs. Lalta Guptaand accordingly 32 debentures were allotted to her on 15th November, 1988. The Allotment Letters Part A and Part B were despatched to all the sharesholders to whom the debentures were allotted, including Lalta Gupta, immeditely thereafter by Registered Post. Since this urns done almost 19 years ago, the exact date on which those allotment letters were sent by registered post to those shareholders is not available in the records of the petitioner Company. The convertible portion of debentures was converted to equity shares on 15th May, 1989.
(Emphasis added)
The deponent submits that the distinctive numbers of these 32 right shares are 5330117 to 5330148. The same includes the said 20 right shares which the respondent No. 1 had alleged to claim.
I say that the aforesaid information is based and derived from the records available with the petitioner company at present. As the transaction in the present case is now more than 19 years old, the petitioner company is not in a position to furnish the exact date and despatch of the shares to Mrs. Lalta Gupta and as such it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Commission may not construe the same against the deponent. The deponent further submits that the concerned official who dealt with the said transaction is no longer working with the petitioner company.
(Emphasis added)
findings:
10. The mere reading of the above paragraphs indicates that company says the date of allotment of debentures was 15.11.1998 and the date of issue of Part-A of the allotment letters pertaining to equity portion which were deemed as share certificate w.e.f. 15.5.1989. The date of con version to equity shares was 15.5.1989 but the company does not know the date of despatch of the share holders as information is not available in the records of the company. The company knows the distinctive numbers of 32 Right Shares which include the 20 Right Shares claimed by the complainant but the company is not in a position to furnish the exact date and despatch of the shares to Mrs. Lalta Gupta as the case is more than 19 years old.
11. The above affidavit is not at all convincing. Accordingly, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission necessitating intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.