Refusal to register share transfer justified where legal attachment existed; title and payment disputes belonged in civil court.

Refusal to register transfer of shares was not deficient in service where the shares were under attachment by the Income-tax Department, because a company may decline registration on a valid legal impediment. The separate dispute over whether the shares were purchased, whether consideration was paid, and whether the alleged seller had title was not proved and depended on issues of title and payment involving unimpleaded owners. That controversy was held to be fit for determination by a civil court, not as consumer deficiency. No deficiency in service was established against the broker or other opposite party, and the consumer complaint was found not maintainable on the proved facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company was deficient in service in refusing registration of transfer of the disputed shares. (ii) Whether the remaining dispute regarding purchase, title and payment for the shares disclosed any deficiency in service by the other opposite parties.

Issue (i): Whether the company was deficient in service in refusing registration of transfer of the disputed shares.

Analysis: The refusal to register the transfer was based on the fact that the shares were under attachment by the Income-tax Department. A company has a statutory duty to register a valid transfer, but it may refuse registration on a valid legal ground. On the facts found, the refusal was justified and did not amount to any fault in service.

Conclusion: The company was not deficient in service.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining dispute regarding purchase, title and payment for the shares disclosed any deficiency in service by the other opposite parties.

Analysis: The dispute as to whether the complainant had actually purchased the shares, whether consideration had been paid, and whether the alleged seller had title, was not conclusively proved. The actual owners were not impleaded, and the controversy was essentially one of title and money claim, which could be determined only by a competent civil court. No material showed deficiency in service by the broker or the other opposite party.

Conclusion: No deficiency in service was established against the remaining opposite parties.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable on the proved facts and the dismissal by the District Forum was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where refusal to register shares is supported by a valid legal impediment, no deficiency in service arises, and a disputed claim turning on title and payment to unimpleaded parties is not fit for adjudication as consumer deficiency.

---