Kerala

Idukki

CC/263/2017

Bindhu Prasannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Kitex Garments Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 12.12.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.263/2017

Between

Complainant : Bindu Prasannan,

Kuttiyanickal House,

West Kodikkulam P.O.,

Thodupuhza, Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,

Kitex Garments Ltd.,

Building No.91, Kitex House,

Kizhakkambalam, Aluva – 683 562.

2. The Director,

Kitex Garments Ltd.,

Building No.91, Kitex House,

Kizhakkambalam, Aluva – 683 562.

3. The Company Secretary,

Kitex Garments Ltd.,

Building No.91, Kitex House,

Kizhakkambalam, Aluva – 683 562.

(All by Advs: Abraham Joseph Markos, Chandappillai Abraham P.G.,

Rachel Abraham & Jerie Ramesh)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant in brief :

 

The complainant is holding 100 shares of the opposite party company of Rs.10/- each having numbers from 02399301 to 02399400. From 25.4.1997 onwards the complainant is holding these 100 shares and opposite party is bound to furnish the details of bonus, dividend etc. But so far opposite parties are not provided above said details of their shares, even after the share business is computerised. The complainant further contended that on enquiry, she came to know that the company allotted 10 additional shares for each share as bonus.

(cont....2)

- 2 -

For getting the current position of her share, the complainant approached opposite parties 1 to 3 directly so many times, but opposite parties failed to furnish any information relating to the shares, which the complainant is holding. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in this matter from the part of opposite parties, the complainant filed this petition for directing the opposite parties to allow the benefits of the said share from 25.4.1997 onwards and also direct them to pay cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version along with an Interim Petition challenging maintainability of the complaint alleging that the complaint is not maintainable on the reason that, complainant is not a consumer of any goods or services rendered from M/s. Kitex Garments Ltd., the opposite party. In this petition, opposite party further contended that complainant is an investor in the opposite party company and investing in a speculative profit making transaction in any way of resale of the goods acquired. Hence the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. For supporting their view, the opposite parties relied upon the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case of Unit Trust of India Vs. Sabitri Devi Agarwal II (2008)CPJ (NC) 260, where it was held that the Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses. Further the opposite party relied on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Super Engineering Corporation Vs. Sanjay Vinayak Pant and another [1992 CPJ(1) 95 NC].

Opposite parties further contended that consequent to the sub-division of shares of the company in 2006, the complainant's 100 shares of Rs.10/- each was sub divided into 1000 shares of Re.1/- each being distinct Folio No.28158501 to 28159500. By resolution passed by the share holders on 30.9.2005, the share certificate containing shares of 10 was cancelled and new share certificate containing shares of Re.1/- each face value was issued after 7.11.2005. Thereafter the complainant had sold the entire 1000 shares to a 3^rd party and hence ceased to hold any shares of the company. The shares in question are non-existed and the complainant's evidence to prove the existance of same is an out dated document which was cancelled after the complainant's shares were sub divided, into 1000 shares having value of Re.1/- each. Consequently the previous share certificate having distinct folio numbers 02399301 to 02399400 (100 shares) were cancelled and replaced by the new share certificate bearing distinct folio numbers from 28158501 to 28159500 (1000 shares). The complainant is under an absolutely erroneous impression that the share certificate from pre-sub-division still holds validity.

(cont....3)

- 3 -

We have heard both sides in detail and have gone through the averements and decisions cited above.

 

On going through the averements of the complainant, it is seen that the complainant is praying for getting information of 100 shares of the opposite party company which she holds since 1997 onwards. She further averred that eventhough she approached the opposite party for getting the present status of her shares and other details regarding the allotment of bonus, dividend etc., opposite parties were reluctant to furnish the details, which they are bound to do. Aggrieved by the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint.

 

Opposite parties challenged this complaint on the ground that the complainant is an investor of the opposite party company and investing is a speculative profit making transaction in the way of resale of the goods acquired. Hence the complainant does not come under the definition of a consumer.

 

At the same time, the Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of Nirma Ltd. Vs. Keshav Dev Maheswari and others. (RP No.2828 of 2010 against order dated 30.4.2016 in Appeal No.1717 /2001 of Uttar Pradesh SCDRC) II (CPJ 2016) Vol.IV, Pg 475, held that “Purchase of shares – Commercial purpose investment in bank deposits, shares, mutual fund etc. does not mean that such investors are engaged in commerce or business. Earning returns by way of such investment is altogether different from generating profit by way of trading or manufacturing activity. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that complainant purchased these shares of the opposite party only for meeting her basic needs from the income and not for trading it or for any commercial purpose.

 

On the basis of the above discussion and the decision of the National Commission discussed above, the Forum is of a considered view that the petition challenging maintainability in this matter is having no legal footings and hence dismissed. Hence the issue regarding the question of maintainability is found in favour of the complainant.

 

Then the case is posted for evidence and complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 share certificate and Ext.P2 split summary are marked.

 

From the opposite side, opposite party produced some document and are marked as Exts.R1 to R4. Ext.R1 is the copy of minutes of the 13^th Annual

(cont....4)

- 4 -

General Body meeting of opposite party company dated 30.9.2005. Ext.R2 is the relevant pages of R1. Ext.R3 is the 13^th Annual General Body Meeting notice dated 30.6.2005. Ext.R4 is the summary of shares from members registry dated 13.1.2018.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both sides and had gone through the evidence on records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a share holder of opposite party company. She was holding 100 shares of the opposite party company of Rs.10/- each having numbers from 02399301 to 02399400, since 25.4.1997 onwards. But the opposite party failed to furnish the bonus, dividend etc. of the above said shares. The learned counsel argued that on enquiry, the complainant came to know that, the opposite party company allotted 10 additional shares for each share as share bonus. For getting current position of her shares, the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 directly so many times, but the opposite parties failed to furnish any information relating to these shares.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the 100 shares of Rs.10/- each which the complainant was holding were split into 1000 shares of Re.1/- each, bearing a distinct folio No.28158501 to 28159500. The splitting of shares was passed by resolution of share holders. This matter was intimated to the complainant through a notice. Hence the company was fulfilled their duty of intimating the share holders of the splitting of shares.

 

The opposite party further submitted that thereafter the complainant sold these 1000 shares in entirety in a single transaction. Hence the subject matter of the complaint does not exist and the complaint is baseless. A mere perusal of the folio numbers will co-relate the fact. The folio numbers of the complainant's 100 shares are 02399301 to 02399400. After the splitting up of these shares, the distinct folio numbers of the 1000 shares are 28158501 to 28159500. The certificate of 100 shares having the folio number discussed above were cancelled upon the sub-division of shares and new folio numbers were assigned to the 1000 shares of the complainant.

(cont....5)

- 5 -

The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant's claim of 100 shares out of 1000 shares still remain is baseless. The complainant slept through the opposite parties intimations.

 

On perusal of the evidence on record submitted by both the parties, it is seen that the 100 shares of Rs.10/- each of the opposite party company, which was holding by the complainant was split up into 1000 shares of Re.1/- each through a resolution passed by the opposite party company after due notice to their share holders. It is evident from Ext.R1, 13^th Annual General Body Meeting of the 1^st opposite party and Ext.R3 notice for the 13^th Annual General Body Meeting dated 30.6.2005. On perusing Ext.R4, the computer print out of share transaction of the opposite party company, it is seen that the complainant sold entire 1000 shares in a single transaction on 31^st July, 2006 to one Santhosh K.K.. As per the details of Ext.R4, it is seen that the share allotted to the complainant are now holding by the above said Santhosh K.K. Hence on the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the complainant is having a misunderstanding that, she is in possession of 100 shares of opposite party company.

 

Hence under the above said circumstances, it is seen that the allegation against the opposite party is not withstanding and the evidence produced by the opposite party is believable and are fortifying their version. Hence the complaint dismissed. No order to cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....6)

- 6 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - share certificate.

Ext.P2 - split summary.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of minutes of the 13^th Annual General Body meeting of

opposite party company dated 30.9.2005.

Ext.R2 - relevant pages of R1.

Ext.R3 - 13^th Annual General Body Meeting notice dated 30.6.2005.

Ext.R4 - summary of shares from members registry dated 13.1.2018.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT