CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

R P KAPUR vs TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 4 January 1999 · Citation: 1999 1 CLT 605 : 1999 1 CPC 499 : 1999 1 CPJ 41 : 1999 1 CPR 73

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C.SEN , R.THAMARAJAKSHI , S.P.BAGLA , C.L.CHAUDHRY , J.K.MEHRA J.
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

2 paragraphs · 388 words
1.

WE have heard Shri R.P. Kapur on his additional memorandum of appeal dated 21st August, 1998 seeking a review of the order of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 486 of 1996 dated 29th May, 1997. In his additional memorandum of appeal, which in effect amounts to a review application, Shri Kapur has pointed out that it was incorrectly mentioned in the order of this Commission dated 29th May, 1997 that the ''District Forum decided the complaint against him.'' We have carefully perused the file again and found that this contention of Shri Kapur is correct and it was incorrectly mentioned in our order that the District Forum decided the complaint against him. In fact, the District Forum had accepted the complaint and directed the TISCO to pay Rs. 2,72,561/ - as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant for not being able to sell the shares as they were issued in the joint names of the complainant, his grand son Amitabh Kapur and his daughter -in -law Deepika, along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation for the mental anguish and harassment, etc. To this extent our order dated 29th May, 1997 would stand modified.

2.

SHRI Kapur has urged, or rather repeated the same arguments which he had advanced earlier when we heard this Revision Petition. After hearing him again and going through the file we are of the view that all the points which Shri Kapur has mentioned in his additional memorandum of appeal, has been adequately dealt with by the State Commission in their order dated 26.4.1996. In fact, it has been very clearly pointed out in the order of the State Commission that the requisite renunciation forms duly signed by the joint holders were sent on 25th August, 1992 well after the extended closing date of the offer viz. 31st July, 1992 and, therefore, the Company was under no mandatory obligation to issue the shares in the name of Shri R.P. Kapur alone as urged by him. We do not find any force in this additional memorandum of appeal seeking a review of our order dated 29th May, 1997 excepting the modification as regards the factum of the decision of the District Forum on the complaint of Shri R.P. Kapur. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. Review petition dismissed.