TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict Forum, Hissar dated 30-9-1993 declining to inter- vene and grant any relief and dismissing the three connected sets of complaints before it. 3. At the very threshold learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Suman Jain took up the categoric stand that the appellants did not even remotely come within the definition of a consumer under the Act and consequently neither the complaints nor the present appeals are at all maintainable. It was highlighted that the District Forum in para 7 of the order had in terms noticed that the status and the locus standi of the complainants was challenged on the ground that they were not consum- ers because they have neither purchased anything from the company nor hired any services for consideration. Nevertheless the District Forum instead of addressing itself to this fundamental flaw had skirted this basic issue without pronouncing thereupon and proceeded to ramble further by rejecting the bar of limitation and adverting to the merits of the case though relief was ultimately denied on an ancillary ground. Mr. Suman Jain's spearhead argument was that the appellants have first to cross the hurdle of being not consumers and establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that in the three sets of complaints clubbed together for trial the complainants had made a grievance with regard to the purchase of shares by them from San Tubes Ltd., San Electronics Ltd. and Panson India Ltd. having their head offices at New Delhi. One Shri J.P. Aggarwal was duly constituted attorney of all the complainants and in that capacity had signed and verified the complaints. It was the allegation that Smt. Geeta Devi and her son Sanjiv Bansal and Shri Sant Lal a brother of Smt. Geeta Devi were the Directors of all the three companies. The allegation was that large sums had been deposited by the complainants in the three companies for the purchase of their equity shares out of the promoters' quotas. However, the shares applied for were not allotted to them and further were not despatched and the deposited amounts were wrongfully retained to the detriment of the complainants. The details of the respective sums allegedly deposited by numerous complainants with San Tubes Ltd.; San Electronics Ltd.; and Panson India Ltd. ranging around Rs. 50,000 and above were given in the relevant complaints. It was the case of the complainants that the allotment of shares should have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Since we are of the view that the matter is covered by precedent it is unnecessary to launch on any exhaustive dissertation on principle and the language of the statute. Herein there is no dispute that according to the definition in the Sale of Goods Act the shares do come within the definition of goods. However, it is the appellant's own case that the said shares were either not in fact allotted at all but in any case not delivered to any one of the complainants. Since the alleged goods were not even delivered, any question of there being defective becomes entirely hypothetical and conjectural. As already noticed, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Mutneja has fairly conceded that there is no question of hiring any service or deficiency arise. In such a situation all that would remain is the question whether the non-delivery of shares can't in any way be deemed as the defect in the allegedly purchased goods. 10. In view of binding and persuasive precedent it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that the closely connected if not identical question came up for exhaustive consideration before this Commission in Pfizer Ltd.'s case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation under the Act. The resultant situation is that the complainants should not have been granted any relief at all by the State Commission and the complaint petition should have been only dismissed." 12. It appears to us that the aforesaid ratio concludes the matter against the appellants by holding that the transaction was neither an agreement of hiring service nor any defect in the goods sold and consequently there was no cause of action for the complainants to launch proceedings under the Act in respect of the alleged transaction of shares. Even placing the case of the appellants at the highest, the aforesaid ratio sees to category-cally negative the same. 13. In all fairness we might as well notice Mr. Mutneja's ingeneous argument that non-delivery of shares would be a defect in the goods and, therefore, it would raise a consumer dispute. Since this issue is also covered against appellants by analogy, reference may be made to the decision of this Commission in Dr. B.S. Gaba v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. I [1991] CPJ 631. Therein the said question had fallen for consideration and it was concluded as under: "To conclude on this aspect, the answer to the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
