Dattatraya Anant Kulkarni Vs. Chairman Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111066
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnOct-01-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.11 of 2008 (In Consumer Complaint No.757 of 2001)
JudgeShri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
AppellantDattatraya Anant Kulkarni
RespondentChairman Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai and Others
Advocates:Mr. Vipul Shukla, Advocate for the Respondents.
Excerpt:
per mrs. s.p. lale, honble member being aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal passed by addl. district consumer disputes redressal forum pune in consumer complaint no.757/2001 decided on 26/10/2007, org. complainant has filed present appeal. the case of complainant before the forum below was that he had applied for reliance polythelene ltd. (rpel) and reliance polypropylene ltd. (rppl) equity shares and debentures floated by reliance industries ltd. in the month of november 1992 for 600 number of shares and 600 number of debentures for both issues and paid rs.9,000/- for each issue. rpel issued 100 shares/600 debentures and rppl issued 700 debentures. according to the complainant, 100 rpel shares were not enclosed along with 600 debentures and rppl disbursed only 700 debentures to the complainant and no allotment letters were enclosed. therefore, complainant was unable to make balance payment of allotment money. complainant wrote several letters, but company did not respond to the complainants letters. therefore, according to the complainant, even after payment of entire call moneys in time, o.ps. did not convert debentures into the shares and redeemed the amount of rs.10,593/- of rppl and rs.5,190/- of rpel on 18/08/1994. complainant thereafter also personally visited o.ps. but, all the efforts went in vain. therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the forum below for deficiency in service. o.ps. filed their written statement and denied the allegations of the complainant in toto. according to the o.ps. complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act, 1986. o.ps. further contended that claim of the complainant is hopelessly time-barred. transaction of the complainant with said o.ps. took place in the year 1995 and complainant has filed complaint in the year 2001 i.e. after six years which is hopelessly time-barred and o.ps. finally prayed for dismissal of complaint. after considering documents and affidavits filed before it, learned district consumer disputes redressal forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order. appellants advocate mr.m.m. mahajan sent sick note and written notes of arguments through clerk, shri ajay pawar, taken on record. we heard mr.vipul shukla, advocate for the respondents. perused the record. according to the respondents, appellant/org. complainant is not a consumer within meaning of section 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act, 1986. appellant has not hired any services for consideration, for that matter purchased any goods from the respondents for consideration, with services or goods have found to be defective. it is also contended by the respondents that complainant had applied for conversion in the year 1995 and has filed consumer complaint in the year 2001, which is hopelessly time-barred. it is the main complaint of the appellant that respondents have failed to delivered rpel and rppl shares in lieu of debentures and had not received the dividend from the respondents. however, no arrangement of hiring of services existed between appellant and the respondents. therefore, this cannot be called as a consumer dispute. appellant is not a consumer within definition of section 2(1)(d) of consumer protection act, 1986. honble national commission in the case of morgan stanley mutual fund v/s. kartik das, (1994) 2 ctj page-385, held that such investors being merely prospective investors were not consumers and not entitled to such reliefs under the consumer protection act, 1986. admittedly, appellant has applied for conversion in the year 1995 and filed consumer complaint in the year 2001 i.e. after six years without filing any delay condonation application. therefore, complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time-barred. in the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the forum below is sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal. in the result, we pass the following order :- order:- 1. appeal stands dismissed. 2. no order as to costs. 3. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Pune in consumer complaint No.757/2001 decided on 26/10/2007, org. complainant has filed present appeal.

The case of complainant before the Forum below was that he had applied for Reliance Polythelene Ltd. (RPEL) and Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. (RPPL) equity shares and debentures floated by Reliance Industries Ltd. in the month of November 1992 for 600 number of shares and 600 number of debentures for both issues and paid Rs.9,000/- for each issue. RPEL issued 100 shares/600 debentures and RPPL issued 700 debentures. According to the complainant, 100 RPEL shares were not enclosed along with 600 debentures and RPPL disbursed only 700 debentures to the complainant and no allotment letters were enclosed. Therefore, complainant was unable to make balance payment of allotment money. Complainant wrote several letters, but Company did not respond to the complainants letters. Therefore, according to the complainant, even after payment of entire call moneys in time, O.Ps. did not convert debentures into the shares and redeemed the amount of Rs.10,593/- of RPPL and Rs.5,190/- of RPEL on 18/08/1994. Complainant thereafter also personally visited O.Ps. But, all the efforts went in vain. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum below for deficiency in service.

O.Ps. filed their written statement and denied the allegations of the complainant in toto. According to the O.Ps. complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. O.Ps. further contended that claim of the complainant is hopelessly time-barred. Transaction of the complainant with said O.Ps. took place in the year 1995 and complainant has filed complaint in the year 2001 i.e. after six years which is hopelessly time-barred and O.Ps. finally prayed for dismissal of complaint.

After considering documents and affidavits filed before it, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

Appellants Advocate Mr.M.M. Mahajan sent sick note and written notes of arguments through Clerk, Shri Ajay Pawar, taken on record. We heard Mr.Vipul Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record.

According to the respondents, appellant/org. complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appellant has not hired any services for consideration, for that matter purchased any goods from the respondents for consideration, with services or goods have found to be defective. It is also contended by the respondents that complainant had applied for conversion in the year 1995 and has filed consumer complaint in the year 2001, which is hopelessly time-barred. It is the main complaint of the appellant that respondents have failed to delivered RPEL and RPPL shares in lieu of debentures and had not received the dividend from the respondents. However, no arrangement of hiring of services existed between appellant and the respondents. Therefore, this cannot be called as a consumer dispute. Appellant is not a consumer within definition of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Honble National Commission in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V/s. Kartik Das, (1994) 2 CTJ page-385, held that such investors being merely prospective investors were not consumers and not entitled to such reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, appellant has applied for conversion in the year 1995 and filed consumer complaint in the year 2001 i.e. after six years without filing any delay condonation application. Therefore, complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time-barred. In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is sustainable in law and there is no merit in the appeal. In the result, we pass the following order :-

Order:-

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.