RAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. KARVEY COMPUTERSHARE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the learned District Forum, Kota whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed on the ground that the dispute is such that cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the Forum.

(2.) In this case 120 equity shares of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. of the face value of Rs.10 were held in the name of one Rikhab Chand Jain and the appellant jointly in which the said Rikhab Chand Jain was the first holder. According to the complaint filed by the complainant in the Forum below, the first holder died on 12.8.1980. As such, the complainant informed the respondent No.3 in September, 1993 that out of 120 shares, 80 shares have been lost and as such duplicate shares may be given and the shares may be transferred in his name. The respondents transferred 40 shares in the name of the complainant but as the remaining 80 shares were reported to be lost, the respondent No.3 asked the complainant to execute an indemnity bond in favour of the company and complete other formalities. The complainant alleged that the respondent No.3 has not transferred the shares in his name and as such it has committed deficiency in service and have adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant also alleged that Smt. Omwati Jain, wife of the first holder of shares had lodged a F. I. R. about the loss of shares which is false and the respondent No.3 had no right to withhold his shares on the objections of the said Smt. Omwati Jain. In the circumstances, the complainant requested for directions for transfer of 80 shares in his name, payment of arrears of dividend and damages of Rs. one lakh on account of mental agony.

(3.) The complaint of the appellant was dismissed on admission stage by the learned District Forum on the ground that the issues raised in the complaint disclose matters which require recording of detailed evidence and as such it cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.