Skip to content


Labhshanker Jiverambhai Vs. Managing Director, Reliance Industries Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtGujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
Decided On
Case NumberComplaint No. 128 of 1990
Judge
AppellantLabhshanker Jiverambhai
RespondentManaging Director, Reliance Industries Ltd. and Another
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 14(1)(d) - comparative citation: 1992 (2) cpj 461.....alleged that the opposite party had promised to give such 50 shares at the premium of rs. 50/- to deposit holders also. 3. the complainant has relied upon a registered letter dated october 14,1989, written to him by the opposite party no. 2 in reply to the notice served by the complainant and the complainant relied upon following observations appearing in the said letter : — “……the preferential allotment of shares was issued by the company and the forms for such preferential allotment were also issued by the company through our offices and we were only helping them in collecting applications forms received from the deposit holders. this was done by us as gesture of good-will towards our deposit holders as well as to the company...” the complainant had not.....
Judgment:

S.A. Shah, President:

1. The complainant is a fixed deposit holder issued by the first opponent Reliance Industries Ltd., Opposite Party No. 2 is the financial consultant through whom the complainant had got his amount deposited by way of fix deposit.

2. The complainant has alleged that Reliance Industries Ltd., had issued Right Shares @ Rs. 60/- each. It is further alleged that the opposite party had promised to give such 50 shares at the premium of Rs. 50/- to deposit holders also.

3. The complainant has relied upon a registered letter dated October 14,1989, written to him by the Opposite Party No. 2 in reply to the notice served by the complainant and the complainant relied upon following observations appearing in the said letter : —

“……The preferential allotment of shares was issued by the company and the forms for such preferential allotment were also issued by the company through our offices and we were only helping them in collecting applications forms received from the deposit holders. This was done by us as gesture of good-will towards our deposit holders as well as to the company...” The complainant had not produced any other circular, advertisement or any memorandum or Resolution of the company, whereby Reliance Industries had made or pronounced certain offer.

4. It appears from the aforesaid letter that the complainant had demanded a sum of Rs. 8,500/- being the loss incurred by him on account of not getting the preferential allotment of 50 shares of Reliance Textile Industries Ltd. However, in the present complaint, the complainant has claimed damages of Rs. 3,73,388/-. The assessment of damages as shown by the complainant in para 12-K appears to us to be without any legal basis and excessive. Even if the rights were available to the complainant and even accepting the allegations made by him in Paragraph 12-A, he himself has assessed the damages at Rs. 9500/- which can be said to have some relation with the breach of the promise, if any.

5. We are constrained to say that the complainant has not produced any evidence whatsoever to support the claim and the claim which has been made is, in our opinion, very excessive, imaginary and not supported by any logic or reasons.

6. The Legislature, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, has given exemption from payment of Court-fees to the consumers; but that does not mean that a consumer can put any figure in the name of so-called damages. In such a case, in order to prevent such exaggerated claims; the Commission may be required to pass orders directing such complainants to pay costs, in future. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the instant case, the Complainant has not based his claim for such an excessive amount by way of any damages.

7. Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has drawn our attention to averments made in paragraphs 21, 22 and 27 of the Written statement, where the Opposite party has in clear terms stated that : —

“...This opponent, therefore, submits that it did not at any time make any offer to its Fix Deposit holders; nor was it required to do so, nor could it have done so...”

Further on in para 23 of the Written statement, it has been stated that :

“...This opponent had not despatched the letter of offer or the accompanying application form to any of its Fix Deposit holders including the complainant. Further, this opponent did not send any application forms to opponent No. 2 but sent the letter of offer and application forms only to its registered Equity shareholders....”

In paragraph 27, the opponent has again specifically stated that : —

“...No fix deposit holder was entitled to any equity shares whatsoever...”

The Complainant has filed a rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made by Opponent No. 1 and has produced a letter written by him in 1989 together with a copy of letter from Opponent No. 2 bearing no date. Opponent No. 2 has in the said letter stated that they have approached the man agreement of Reliance to make available certain Equity Shares out of the Right issued, for placement among their clients. The Opponent has also made it clear in the said letter that : —

“...Since the issue is on the Right basis, the Company is not in a position, to commit definite allotment. Nevertheless, we shall endeavor our best to procure for you certain equity shares by pursuing the company to allot, in. case of availability of shares.”

Opponent No. 2 has further stated that if the Fix Deposit holder is interested, he can send a cheque of Rs. 3,000/-, being the value of 50 shares at the rate of Rs. 60/- sixty per share in favour of “Reliance Industries, Ltd.”

We are told at the Bar by the learned Advocate Miss Nayna Shah appearing for the complainant that the complainant has not send any cheque for Rs. 3,000/- as requested or suggested by the Opponent. It is, therefore, not understandable as to how the claimant has come forward to claim a Right.

8. In order to clear the doubt, we had directed Opponent No. 2 to swear an Affidavit clearly stating that neither the complainant, nor any other depositor who was holding Fix-Deposit in the year 1987, was given any preferential Right for the Reliance Share and accordingly, Mr. Rupen Gandhi on behalf of the Opponent No. 2 has filed his affidavit in his capacity as Vice President of the Opponent company stating that in the year 1987, the company had not distributed any Forms to any of the Fix Deposit Holders of the company concerning the offer of the Right Issue of Equity Shares of Opposite Party No. 1 to its Equity Share Holders.

9. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we do not find any substance in the Complaint. The Complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //