CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

AMRUT INDUSTRIES LTD vs G.GOPALASWAMY

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 January 1998 · Citation: 1999 1 CPJ 632

HON’BLE JUDGES
E.J.Bellie , Angel Arulraj J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 369 words
1.

THE opposite party M/s. Amrut Industries Ltd., against which an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE case of the 1st complainant (2nd complainant is the Pugalur Consumer Protection Council) is that he has purchased 400 shares of the opposite party Company in the Stock Exchange. He has applied to the Company for effecting name transfer sending the shares alongwith his application, but the Company has not transferred so. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On these allegations the complaint has been filed.

2.

THE opposite party filed a counter in the form of a letter addressed to the President of the District Forum stating inter-alia that there was no negligence or fraudulent act on their part. The District Forum directed the opposite parties to return the 400 shares to the complainant after transfering the shares in his name and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and also cost of Rs. 500/-. It further ordered that in case the shares had been already transferred to a third party the opposite party shall send fresh shares numbering 400 of the face value of Rs. 10/- each .to the complainant.

Now, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party contends that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. He contends that the complainant is not a consumer at all under the Consumer Protection Act since he has not availed of any service of the opposite party. We find much force in this contention. Even according to the complainant, he has purchased the shares in the Stock Exchange and then has sent them to the opposite party for transfering them in his name. No question of the complainant availing of any service of the opposite party by paying any consideration arises. The proper Forum for the complainant would be a Civil Court or a Company Court and not the Consumer Forum. Therefore, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as correct.

3.

IN the result therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.