WIPRO LTD Vs. SURENDRA SINGH CHANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by Wipro Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 (for short "Wipro") in the Complaint under the Act, against the order, dated 27.05.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 3 of 2008. While accepting the said Complaint, preferred by Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Wipro in not delivering/dispatching the Bonus Shares, the State Commission, has held that Wipro was deficient in rendering services, inasmuch as the Bonus Shares, to which the Complainants were entitled to, were not delivered to them and rather they were subjected to immense harassment and mental agony. Consequently, the State Commission has directed Wipro to allot 4500 Shares to the Complainants or in the alternative, pay the market value of the same as on date, besides paying Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that order. Since no relief was prayed for in the Complaint against Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3, i.e. Narinder Singh and Company (Spot Delivery Share Dealers) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short "SEBI") respectively, no direction has been issued to them by the State Commission.

(2.) 1. Succinctly put, the material facts are as follows:-

(3.) Though written version was filed by SEBI, but the Complaint was mainly contested by Wipro, on diverse grounds, including its maintainability on the grounds of limitation as well as territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it was pleaded that the share transfer form for transfer of 50 Equity Shares, which the Complainants had purchased from the market, was received by Wipro only after 18.01.1990, i.e. after 26.12.1989, the Cut off date and 27. 12.1989, the Record date for closure of share transfer books and the register of members and, therefore, Complainants request for issue of Bonus Shares on the said 50 Equity Shares, could not be considered. Nevertheless, the said 50 Shares were transferred in the name of the Complainants as per the Resolution passed in the Administrative Committee Meeting of the Board of Directors and were sent to them by post on 24.03.1990. It was asserted that as per the approval received from the Central Government, the Bonus Shares in the ratio of 1:1 were allotted to the original shareholders namely, Mr. Ardeshia Rustom Hakimiyan and Mr. Arnavaz Ardeshia Hakimyan, in whose name the Shares purchased by the Complainants were registered as on the record date; the Share Certificate for the Bonus Shares was sent to them and, therefore once the Bonus Shares had been issued against the said shares, it was not possible to retrieve the same and restore them to the Complainants.