Delay in making endorsement and sending share certificates does not necessarily amount to deficiency of service.

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum passed in CD. No. 491/1993, the opposite party, that is, Tata Timken Ltd. preferred this appeal.

2. This first respondent herein one M. Venkatarao filed a complaint claiming return of the original shares certificate and also damages of Rs. 21,500/- from the opposite party and costs. The complainant’s case was that he was allotted 20 partly convertible debentures which have to be converted later into 100 shares and also 20 part-B debentures. Subsequently, those debentures were converted into original share certificates for which the numbers and the allotment number were mentioned in the complaint. The complainant’s grievance is that he sent the original share certificates to the opposite party for endorsement on 27.4.92 by registered post buthe did not receive back the share certificates after due endorsement by the first opposite party. He sent reminders on 30.8.92 by registered post acknowledgement due, but there was no response from the opposite party. He issued lawyer’s notice and filed this complaint for the reliefs mentioned above.

3. It appears that no notice was served on the opposite party and they, therefore, remained ex-parte.

4. On behalf of the complainant, Exs. A-1 to A-10 were marked. Ex. A is the letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party and Ex. A-2 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex. A-3 is the letter said to be a reminder dated 30.8.92 and Ex. A-4, is the postal acknowledgement. Ex. A-5 is the registered notice and Ex. A-6 is the acknowledgement. Exs. A-7 to A-9 are the paper cuttings showing the prevailing prices of the shares in the market. Ex. A-10 is the offer made by the opposite party to the complainant stating that they have no objection to issue duplicate share certificates on furnishing an indemnity bond by the complainant.

5. The District Forum held that having regard to the registered letters and the acknowledgements, the complainant sent share certificates, admittedly the opposite party did not return the same after due endorsement. It, therefore, held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and having regard to the price of the shares prevailing in the year 1992, it awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/- and also costs of Rs. 300/-.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. It is firstly submitted that mere delay in making endorsement and sending the share certificates does not amount to deficiency of service. It relied on the decision of National Commission in Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh & Otliers v. United Land & Housing Ltd. and Others, II (1993) CPJ 216 (NC) and a decision in R.P. No. 208/1993, M/s. Usha Rectifier Corporation (I) Ltd. v. Dr. K. Dattatreya Rao, wherein the National Commission held that mere delay in issuing convertible debentures will not amount to deficiency of service. It was further held that there is no question of share-holder hiring the services of the company in the issue of debentures and no consideration was paid by the share-holder to the company for that purpose. Following aforesaid decisions, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. But the opposite party in their letter Ex. A-10 agreed to issue duplicate share certificates to the complainant on producing the indemnity bond, we, therefore, direct the opposite party to issue duplicate share certificates to the complainant within one month after production of the indemnity bond by the complainant. The order of the District Forum in awarding costs is confirmed. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Appeal disposed of.