Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/241/2017

Kanwaljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master General, General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Ghai Adv. & Hitesh Ghai Adv.

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	210 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	24.8.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2018

 

The Post Master General, General Post Office, Sector 17, UT, Chandigarh.

..…Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Kanwaljeet Kaur C/o Brig. Opinder Singh, Resident of House No.2501/B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

..…Respondent/Complainant

2.  Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd., C-13, Pannalal Silk Mills Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup [W], Mumbai – 400078, through its Managing Director (Registrar and Share Transfer Agent (RTA of Asahi India Safety Glass, Ltd.)).
3. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., Registered Office, Unit No. 203-208, Tribhuwan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110020, through its Manager.
4. SEBI, Branch Office, SCO No.127-128, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

…..Performa Respondents No.2, 3  & 4.

 

Argued by:

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

None for respondent No.4.

====================================================

Appeal No.	:	241 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	6.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Kanwaljeet Kaur aged about 66 years c/o Brig. Opinder Singh, R/o 2501/B, Sector 47/C, Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. The Post Master General, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. C-13, Pannalal Silk Mills Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup [W], Mumbai – 400078, through its Managing Director (registrar and share transfer agent (RTA of Asahi India Safety Glass, Ltd.)).
3. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., Registered Office, Unit No. 203-208, Tribhuwan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110020.
4. SEBI, Branch Office, SCO No.127-128, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for appellant

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

None for respondent No.4.

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              Vide this common order, we propose to dispose the aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.1210 of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 (Post Master General) and 241 of 2017 filed by the complainant (Kanwaljeet Kaur) against the order dated 10.07.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.308 of 2015 was allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 was directed as under:-

“12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view  that the Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 [b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

The complaint against Opposite Parties No.2, 3 & 4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [b].” 

 

2.     The facts in brief are that the complainant was holding 8000 Shares of Asahi India Safety Glass i.e. Opposite Party No.3 under Folio No.K0000303 since its inception. It was stated that the Opposite Party No.3 had issued a Rights issue on 22.08.2013 and the last date of the submission of the application was 05.09.2013. It was further stated that the complainant had been mailed a CAF No.K0000303/27412/8420 by Speed Post No.EA60610076IN through Link Intime Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.2, on 16.08.2013, as claimed by the Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant received the form through normal post only around 01.10.2013. It was further stated that the complainant was interested to apply for the same, but since he was intentionally not sent the application form on time, therefore, he could not apply for the same and had suffered huge financial loss. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, but did not get any satisfactory reply and even the complainant got served  legal notice dated 02.02.2015 upon the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, calling upon the Opposite Party No.3 to allot 4160 shares at the rate as on 22.08.2013, but to no success. It was further stated that unfortunately, the Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 24.02.2015 laid the entire fault at the door of Opposite Party No.1 by giving wrong speed post number i.e. EA60160075IN. In this manner, the complainant was left in lurch. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.  
3.     The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that Speed Post Article No.EA60610076IN might have been delivered at the address of the complainant, but the record to that effect had since been weeded out, as such, the system is unable to re-generate the tracking details. It was further stated that as per tracking record Article No.EA60160075IN was not meant for the complainant and the same was delivered at the correct address at Bhandup West S.O. It was further stated that no liability can be shifted on Opposite Party No.1 as the alleged Article No.EA60160075IN was delivered at the correct address, as per tracking record, and this article was not meant for the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the answering Opposite Party, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4.     The Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the article, in question, was sent to the complainant by it, being the RTA of Opposite Party No.3 vide speed post No.EA6016100751N on 16.08.2013, well before the issuance of Right Share to public at large and denied that the article, in question, was sent to wrong address and not to Chandigarh. It was further stated that there was no mistake either on the part of Opposite Party No.2 or the Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that on receipt of legal notice dated 02.02.2015, it was duly replied vide communication dated 24.02.2015. It was further stated that there was no any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.     Opposite Party No.3 in its written reply, while admitting the factual aspect of the case, has taken almost similar pleas, as have been taken by the Opposite Party No.2 and stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on its part, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6.     Opposite Party No.4 in its written statement admitted that the complainant had made a complaint to it dated 22.05.2014 bearing Registration No.SEBIE/DH14/0000577/1, wherein it was alleged that she had received the application form through normal post on 01.10.2013, whereas last date for sending the form was 05.09.2013. It was further stated that her complaint was processed and closed on 01.08.2014, on the basis of action taken report received from the Company. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on its part, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7.     The complainant filed replication, wherein she reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.
8.     The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
9.     After hearing the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above, against opposite party no.1 only.
10.     Feeling aggrieved, Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal for setting aside the order impugned, whereas, on the other hand, the complainant has filed cross appeal, referred to above, for enhancement of compensation, awarded by the Forum.
11.     We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
12.     The moot question that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum was right in allowing the complaint against opposite party no.1 or not. It may be stated here that on going through the contents of the complaint filed before the Forum, it reveals that it has been clearly alleged by the complainant, in para no.6, that it was on account of fault on the part of opposite party no.3 i.e. Asahi India Safety Glass, in sending the ‘issue’, on the incorrect address, as a result whereof, she could not get the same. Not only as above, in para no.15  of the complaint also, it has been specifically stated by the complainant, that opposite parties no.2 and 3 are trying to shift the liability on opposite party no.1 i.e. the appellant, by twisting the facts. In the complaint,  no specific allegations were levelled against opposite party no.1, by the complainant. Opposite party no.1 was duty bound to deliver the product, on the address given to it by opposite parties no.2 and 3, which it did. However, if opposite parties no.2 and 3 have committed error in giving wrong address to opposite party no.1, then in no way, it can be held liable for any deficient services, as far delivery of the said issue, at the given address, instead of the correct address of the complainant, is concerned. It is not known, as to how, the Forum, without having even a single evidence on record, against opposite party no.1/appellant, gave findings against it and allowed the complaint thereby ordering it to pay compensation and also litigation expenses to the complainant.

                In our considered opinion, the Forum fell into a grave error in allowing the complaint against opposite party no.1/appellant, and as such, needs interference of this Commission. 

13.     For the reasons recorded above, appeal bearing No.210 of 2017 filed by Opposite Party No.1/appellant, is allowed, with no order as to cost. The order of the Forum is set aside.
14.     Now coming to the cross appeal bearing No.241 of 2017, it may be stated here that it is an admitted case that the complainant has levelled allegations on opposite parties no.2 to 3, that since the said ‘issue’/CAF could not be received by her, in time, on account of their fault, as such, she was caused huge financial loss of about Rs.20 lacs, as she could not buy the new shares, on account of expiry of the last date to do so. In the first instance, it may be stated here that, the loss so assessed by the complainant is only speculative. As such, Forum was right in holding that the Consumer Fora are not meant for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses.

                Secondly, it is very pertinent to add here that in the present case, not even a single averment has been made by the complainant in her complaint, that the shares in question were purchased by her, so that she is able to run her livelihood, whereas, on the other hand, in her complaint, she has, in so many paragraphs alleged that on account of the said act of the opposite parties, she was caused huge financial losses. As such, it is proved on record that the entire case revolves around huge financial loss, caused to the complainant, on account of non-purchase of further shares, from the Company. Therefore, it can very well be said that the complainant is an investor. The view of this Commission is further fortified from the contents of complaint itself, wherein it is stated that the complainant is in custody of 8000 shares of the Company, in dispute, meaning thereby that she was engaged in the business of buying and selling shares on regular basis i.e. for commercial purpose. In view of above, she would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under the act.   Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No.3367 of 2013 (Sudhangsu Bhusan Dutta vs. The Joint Managing Director Mansukh Securities & Finance Ltd.) decided on 16.04.2014. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“However, it stands proved that the entire case revolves around the shares. The petitioner himself has admitted that he is an investor. This Bench, vide order dated 01.08.2012, in RP No.1179/2012, titled A.Asaithambi Vs. The Company Secretary & Ors., placed reliance on paras 26,27, 33, 34 and 35 of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225, and dismissed the complaint. 7. In that case, reliance was also placed on Som Nath Jain Vs. R.C. Goenka & Anr., reported in 1 (1994) CPJ 27 (NC), West Bengal State Commission, in case Ramendra Nath Basu Vs. Sanjeev Kapoor & Anr., 1 (2009) CPJ 316 and Delhi State Commission in case Anand Prakash Vs. A.M. Johri & Ors., III (2000) CPJ 291. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of this Bench (RP No.1179/2012) (supra) a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36840 of 2013, titled A.Asaithambi Vs. The Company Secretary & Ors, was filed before the Honle Supreme Court, which was dismissed.

9. In another case reported in Ganapathi Parmeshwar Kashi & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Anr, in First Appeal No. 362 of 2011, decided on 21.08.2012, pertaining to DMAT account, this Commission dismissed the same.

10. Aggrieved by the said order a Special Leave to Appela (Civil) No.5401 of 2013, titled Ganapathi Parmeshwar Kashi & Arn. Vs. Bank of India & Anr., was filed, wherein the Honle Apex Court held as under :- ii) The concurrent finding recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the petitioners cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is based on analysis of the pleadings filed by the parties. The DMAT account was opened by the petitioners purely for commercial transactions. Therefore, they were rightly not treated as consumer so as to entitle them to claim compensation by filing complaint under the 1986 Act

11. The revision petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.”

 

15.     Even otherwise, if going on merits also, the complainant has no strength in her case. Her case stands on a main plea that she could not buy the shares of the Company, on account of non-receipt of information (CAF) sent by opposite parties no.2 and 3 through post, on account of wrong address provided to opposite party no.1. The said plea alone, is not of much support to the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was not a novice to the said transaction. She was actively engaged in buying the shares and was already in custody of 8000 shares of the Company. It cannot be believed that a person who is so richly engaged in buying and selling such huge quantity of shares is not prone to the newspapers, internet etc. to know as to when the said shares are rising or dipping. As such, the complainant could have easily gone through the information relating to the said issue’/shares, regularly being published by the Company in newspaper namely ‘The Financial Express’, Economy.  Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have placed on record the said newspapers of different dates, wherein the said information was readily available and provided to their consumers, so that they are able to take decision in that regard. Under above circumstances, even on merits, no case is made out, in favour of the complainant. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.241 of 2017, filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. The findings given by the Forum, to this extent stands affirmed.
16.     Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

17.07.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                       

 

                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                          [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                               

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Rg.

 

 

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	241 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	6.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Kanwaljeet Kaur aged about 66 years c/o Brig. Opinder Singh, R/o 2501/B, Sector 47/C, Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. The Post Master General, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. C-13, Pannalal Silk Mills Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup [W], Mumbai – 400078, through its Managing Director (registrar and share transfer agent (RTA of Asahi India Safety Glass, Ltd.)).
3. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., Registered Office, Unit No. 203-208, Tribhuwan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110020.
4. SEBI, Branch Office, SCO No.127-128, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

Sh. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for appellant

Sh. G.C. Babbar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

None for respondent No.4.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately in Appeal No.210 of 2017 titled as ‘The Postmaster General Vs. Kanwaljeet Kaur and ors.’, this appeal has been dismissed with no order as to costs.

2.         Certified copy of the main order, passed in Appeal No. 210 of 2017, be placed on this file also.
3.         Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
4.         The file be considered to the Record Room, after completion.

 

Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                 Sd/-

 

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

 

Rg.