In this appeal, M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. has challenged the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.231/2000. The State Commission has allowed the complaint of Ms. Ankeeta Baheti and directed the appellant (OP-1 before the State Commission) and Karvy Consultants Ltd./OP-2 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent/complainant. 2. The matter related to purchase of 400 shares of the appellant company by the complainant, through M/s. James Caple Batliwala and Karani Securities Pvt. Ltd. (arrayed as OP-3 before the State Commission) in two different contracts of 10.7.1977 and 14.7.1977. The complainant sent these shares to OP-1 for registration in his name. Only 300 shares were duly transferred in the name of the complainant and no intimation was received about the remaining 100 shares. On personal follow up with the Shares Transfer Department of OP-1, he was informed that the concerned 100 shares already stood in the name of another person, Ms. Neha Sharma. Subsequently, the Company Secretary of appellant/OP-1 informed the complainant, through a letter of 21.9.1998, that the concerned shares certificate had been found to be fake. This letter also informed that in the register of members, the original public issue allottee was still the holder of these shares. Nevertheless, the letter assured the complainant that the matter had been taken up with Karvy Consultants, as the erstwhile Registrar, with a request to compensate the loss to the buyer in this matter. 3. In the complainant before the State Commission, it is claimed that the relevant shares had originally been allotted in the name of Mr. Paramjeet Singh and were transferred in the name of Canara Bank Trustees Mutual Fund on 15.3.1994. It is therefore, contended that had the said certificate been a fake one, it could not have been transferred in the name of Canara Bank Trustees Mutual Found, prior to its purchase by the complainant. 4. Per contra, in the written response before the State Commission it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant company that one person by name Ms. Neha Sharma had originally been allotted 100 shares of the appellant company in 1992 vide allotment no.205804 (Folio No.45041) and the share certificate no. 119538. It was denied that the relevant share certificate was issued in the name of Mr. Paramjeet Singh. It was also denied that this share certificate had at any point of time been transferred in favour of the Canara Bank. As per the written statement the share certificate number mentioned on the certificate in the name of Paramjeet Singh was that of the share certificate originally allotted to-- and still held by-- Ms. Neha Sharma. The folio number on the certificate in the name of Paramjeet Singh belonged to another allottee, Shri Rajeev Rai, in the register of the company. It was categorically stated in the Written Response of OP-1 that the share certificate of the same number having continued to be in the name of original allottee Ms. Neha Sharma, the question of its transfer to Canara Bank did not arise. The share certificate relied upon by the Complainant in the name of Paramjeet Singh and the endorsements thereon were all forged and fabricated. According to OP-1, Canara Bank never applied for transfer of these shares to its name from the name of Pramjeet Singh. 5. While accepting the complaint against appellant/OP-1, and OP-2 the State Commission has held that:- “As per Section 11-A of the Companies Act, the company is bound to transfer the share lodged by a person within a period of two months from the date of lodgement or intimate the reasons for not transferring the same. Further, as per requirement of the Listing Agreement executed with the stock exchanges the shares which are traded on the floor of stock exchange are compulsorily required to be transferred in the name of the transferee within a period of one month from the date of its lodgement. As such if the shares in question were found to be fake and bad delivery and could not have been transferred due to whatever reasons, intimation in that respect was bound to be given to the complainant during the said stipulated period of one month. Having failed to do so, O.P. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the financial loss as well as harassment and mental agony suffered by her.” 6. We have heard Mr. Manoranjun Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the appellant/Satyam Computer Services and Mr. Suresh Baheti authorised representative of respondent/Complainant. We have also carefully considered the records produce on behalf of the two sides. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that under the law the appellant is under an obligation to confiscate a share certificate which is found to be fake to prevent its circulation in the market and to save genuine investor from being cheated. It is also argued that entire foundation of the claim of the Complainant rests on failure of the appellant to transfer fake certificate. Therefore, no relief should have been granted by the State Commission to the complainant nor has the complainant been able to make out any case for relief or compensation. 8. In our views these contentions are raised without reference to the findings of the State Commission. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commission has declined to grant those benefits to the respondent/complainant, which would have accrued, had the shares purchased by her been accepted by the OPs as genuine and not fake. The order of the State Commission clearly shows that the appellant company was under an obligation to respond to the requests for transfer of share within a period of one month. In this case, as the share certificate was found to be a fake one, it became a case of bad delivery. Immediate intimation should have been given to the respondent/complainant. The case of the complainant is that he has sent the relevant certificate to transfer her name through Speed Post on 9.9.1997 and was informed in the letter of 21.9.2008 by the Company Secretary of the appellant company that the share certificate was found to be fake and therefore not transferable. This letter was sent after a gap of more than one year. Neither this letter nor the written response before the State Commission give any details of exactly when and how the complainant was informed, if before 21.9.2008. The only specific reference in the Written Statement is to the letter of 21.9.1998. 9. The last mentioned letter, produced on record as Annexure P-3, had assured the complainant that:- “However to alleviate you from the monetary loss and mental agony we have already taken up this matter with Karvy Consultants our erstwhile registrars with a request to compensate the loss of buyer in this matter. It is under their active consideration now.” Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has informed that no compensation was given. It needs to be observed that having given an assurance as above, the Memorandum of Appeal filed by M/s Satyam Computer Services does not show what compensation was eventually given to the complainant. On the contrary, it claims that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to any compensation and that the appellant/OP was within its right to confiscate the fake certificate. 10. As per record, the complainant was for the first time informed about non-transferability of the 100 shares through the letter of 21.9.1998. The same letter shows that any earlier communication, even if sent, was not received by the respondent/complainant. Clearly therefore, the cause of action arose on 21.9.1998. The consumer complainant was filed in August 2000 i.e. within a period of two years. We therefore do not accept the contention of the appellant that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 11. In the light of the above, we hold that the appellant has completely failed to make out any case against the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000. The same shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within a period of two months. | 
