JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No. 243/1999 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to transfer the shares in the name of the late father of the complainants within one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 250/- and costs of Rs. 200/-.
2.It is the case of the complainants that the 40 shares held by the late father of the complainants were sought to be transferred in the name of the complainants which the opposite party has not complied with. The main contentions of the opposite parties are that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not consumers and hence there can be no question of deficiency in service. It was also contended that as one of the complainants is a Non-Resident Indian without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India the shares cannot be transferred. It was also contended that the complainants are not entitled to get the shares got automatically transferred as per the provisions of the Companies Act and the Articles of Association of the company.
3.Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, the first complainant and Exts. P1 to P6 that included the succession certificate and the copies of letters seeking transfer.
4.The Forum has noted that opposite parties have not produced any documents or adduced any evidence to establish that the complainants are not entitled to get the shares transferred and hence ordered the opposite parties/appellants to transfer the shares, 40 in number.
5.The Counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that the complainants cannot be treated as consumers and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction. It is also stated that only Company Law Board is empowered under the Companies Act, 1956 to adjudicate such disputes. It is also mentioned that the Articles of Association of the company specifically restricted the transfer of shares to a person outside the family.
6.We find that the contention as to the maintainability on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer is without merits in view of the decision of the National Commission in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs B. Subba Rao [I (2009) CPJ 87 (NC)]; Advent Computer Services Ltd. Vs V.R. Kannan and others [2010 CTJ 491 (CP)]. The decision of the State Commissions in Neera Maheswari Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. [II (2005)CPJ 402] and Eastern Mining and Allied Industries Vs Rajesh Jain and ors. [III (1997) CPJ 418] also is in support of the contention of the respondents/complainants that the authorities under the CP Act has got jurisdiction in the matter and the failure to effect transfer of shares etc. amounted to deficiency in service.
7.With respect to the other contentions that the Articles of Association of the Company did not allow transfer of shares automatically and the RBI sanction is required for the transfer infavour of NRIs, as held by the Forum no evidence was adduced. There is nothing to show that the opposite parties had taken any steps in this regard. In the circumstances, we find that there is nothing to interfere in the order of the Forum.
In the result the appeal is dismissed.
The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order.