- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22.10.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 36,000 to the complainant jointly and severally within one month of the order being the difference of the value of shares along with Rs. 15,000 towards economic loss and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards costs. It was further directed that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 within the same period, will also provide to the complainant a genuine copy of the share transfer form for getting the 50 numbers of shares transferred to his name. If the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 fail to pay the above amount to the complainant within due date, interest @ 12% p.a. will also be payable to the complainant on Rs. 53,000 till the actual date of payment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.1994 the complainant purchased 50 shares of opposite party No. 3, then registered under the name of Sandoz (India) through opposite party No. 2 who is a legal agent of opposite party No. 1. The said shares in the name of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6, were held by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for sale and these were purchased by the complainant on an assurance given by the opposite party No. 2 that there is no risk involved and that he would get the shares transferred to his name. The complainant has stated that he purchased the shares on payment of Rs. 43,770. The complainant sent the share certificate along with the transfer deed to the opposite party No. 4 who is the share transfer agent of opposite party No. 3 but the opposite party No. 4 informed that the transferor's signatures on the transfer deed differ from the specimen signatures recorded with the company and thus the shares cannot be transferred to his name. The complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 and requested him to provide him the transfer deed containing the actual signatures of the transferee and also sent many reminders but of no avail. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint before the learned Forum claiming the reliefs as set forth in the complaint.
(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 (who is the appellant before us) and opposite party did not file any written statement before the learned Forum. The opposite party No. 3 stated that the dispute is between the complainant and his broker. The opposite party No. 3 has requested to be absolved of any possible adverse consequence of the case. The opposite party No. 4 stated in the written statement that the share transfer form submitted by the complainant was returned for want of genuine signatures of the seller and since the dispute is between the complainant and his broker, the opposite party No. 4 be absolved of any possible adverse consequence of the complaint. The opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 have stated that since they have not rendered any services to the complainant, they cannot be impleaded as a party. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is evident from the record that there was a dispute regarding the specimen signatures and the actual signatures on the transfer deed. The order has been passed against the appellant (opposite party No. 1 before the learned Forum) and the opposite party No. 2. Rest of the opposite parties have been exonerated. The appellant did not file any written statement before the learned Forum. The appellant in para 3 of his appeal has stated that Mr. Surendra Singh Ahuja, Advocate appeared on his behalf before the learned Forum on 24.4.1998 and filed his Vakalatnama but did not file any written statement or documents on behalf of the appellant. The case was fixed for 2.6.1998. Since 2.4.1998 to 9.9.1998, the learned Forum postponed the hearing due to strike of the Counsel. On 5.11.1998, the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 asked the Forum for a copy of the complaint. Later on, 22.12.1998 was fixed and the copy of the complaint was provided and the case was adjourned till 10.2.1999. 23.3.2000 for want of quorum. On 6.5.1999 when the case was heard, no body appeared on behalf of the appellant. The Counsel for the appellant did not inform him about the progress of the case and as such the appellant was unaware about the proceedings of the case and the order was passed against the appellant ex parte. From the order sheet it is evident that the appellant never appeared personally before the learned Forum. It is further alleged that the appellant came to the knowledge of the present proceedings on 5.10.2000, when he appeared before the learned Forum in Case No. 24 of 2000 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.;