Mrs. J. Nag, President - The petitioner was a registered dealer of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited, a statutory body formed to manage conduct and regulate the state of affairs of Calcutta Stock Exchange of which the opposite party No.1 & 2 are the office bearers as the President & Secretary of the said Association. The petitioner was holding “Unit Certificate No. 776” which was in his personal name. This is an important document for registered member and under the control of the Calcutta Stock Exh-change to do business. In February, 1990 it was found that the said Unit Certificate is missing and he accordingly informed the opposite parties to issue a duplicate of the said Unit Certificate(Letters dated 2.5.1990, 3.5.1990 and 9.3.1990). The opposite parties gave him assurance that a duplicate certificate will be issued(letter dt. 29.3.1991). He was asked to pay Rs. 300/- by cheque as cost of advertisement in the newspaper. He complied with this and the cheque was enchased by the opposite parties and advertisement for public notice for lost was duly published in the Business Standard of 26.4.1991

2. However after waiting for a long time the petitioner realized that the opposite parties are reluctant to issue the certificate and inspite of repeated demands no response was received from the opposite parties.

3. The opposite party submitted that claim of the petitioner is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated by the opposite parties that the petitioner has admitted that he has sold the certificate to one Shyam Sundar Singhania of 16. India Exchange Place. Calcutta. It is stated by the O.P. that the petitioner is trying to practice fraud on the Unit given to him by the petitioner and the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association.

4. The O.P. relying on an undated letter(vide page 9 of the written objection of the O.P.) alleged to be written by the petitioner wherein he has stated that he has sold the Unit to S.S. Singhania of 16. India Exchange Place. Calcutta. This letter was not only undated but according to the petitioner it was fabricated by the O.Ps. to fulfil their mischievous motive.

5. We are of the view that this letter alleged to be written by the petitioner is forged and fabricated. Why should the petitioner claim duplicate certificate when he has already supposed to have sold this Unit Card to Mr. Singhania? And why should he be paid Rs. 300/- as the cost of advertisement to .the O.P.? And moreover why "should he suffer loss as he cannot carry on the business without the Unit Card? Further’ even if the petitioner had sold the Unit to Mr. Singhania alleged to be the purchaser of the said unit, the money of the sale should have been deposited to the Calcutta Stock Exchange as per Memorandum of Article of Association of Calcutta Stock Exchange which the alleged buyer has not done so far. Neither O.Ps. intimated about the same till date to the petitioner inspiti of his repeated letters and reminders.

6. Therefore, we hold in his favour that the Unit has been actually lost and the alleged Mr. Singhania to whom the Unit was sold to non est person. As regards the question raised by the opposite parties whether the matter comes within the purview of the Stale Commission, we have no doubt that it comes within the definition of deficiency of service as defined in Section 2(c) Clause(iii) of the Consumers Protection Act.

Accordingly, the application succeeds. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to issue a duplicate Unit Certificate as prayed for by the petitioner within one week. The petitioner is awarded cost of Rs. 500/- for the harassment caused to trim by the Opposite parties.

Complaint allowed.