BHASKAR AMRUTA PACHPORE vs OMPRAKASH MANGILAL SONI

THIS revision petition arises out of the order out of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum with some minor modifications.

THE facts which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are that the complainant applied for the shares of the opposite party No. 1 M/s. Devesh Sugar Ltd. in pursuance to the application forms issued by the opposite party No. 2, the broker. THE complainant purchased the shares on the basis of the representation made in the application forms that the purchase of shares would be on the basis of buy-back shares. However, the opposite party No. 1 did not come out with public issue and the complainant could not recover his investment of Rs. 15,000/-. All his efforts to recover his investment failed and hence he approahed the District Forum which has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which amount was arrived at by the District Forum on the basis of the buy-back value of the shares Rs. 3,000/- as costs with interest on the total amount of Rs. 23,000/- at 21% from 1.3.1997 till realization, failing which the above said amount would carry interest at 24% p.a. THE District Forum also awarded costs of Rs. 250/- to the complainant. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the opposite party No. 2, i.e. the broker went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal by reducing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- by observing that there was no supporting data for awarding Rs. 20,000/- as share market kept on fluctuating and therefore precise rate could not be awarded as was done in the matter in the absence of credible data. The State Commission also reduced the rate of interest to 12% depending on the circumstances and upheld the rest of the order of the District Forum.

Still not satisfied, the appellant has come in revision before us. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the order of the State Commission as well as that of the District Forum. We find no error in the order of the State Commission which merits our interference. Moreover the State Commission has rightly reduced the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 15,000/- with the reasoning as discussed above. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the petitioner was also not able to show us any buy-back offer from the opposite party company. In view of the above discussion, we do not find it a fit case for us to interfere in the order of the State Commission in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.