URMILABEN CHANDRAKANT PATEL vs MANAGING DIRECTOR

THIS is an appeal by the complainant. She is a holder of shares from the company of the opposite party/respondent No. 1 herein. She applied for preferential right shares which were announced by the Opp. Party No. 1. Even though she has sent the applications in the proper form, the shares were not issued to her. After making repeated requests she was driven to approach the District Forum, Pondicherry. Before the District Forum the opposite party No. 1 admitted his failure in allotting the snares to the complainant, but however stated that in view of the large number of applications there was some unavoidable cases of lapses. The opposite party then came forward to issue her shares upon the applicant paying the money. Accordingly, the District Forum closed the complaint after recording the declaration of the opposite party that the complainant was being allotted shares. The District Forum decided not to award any compensation.

AGGRIEVED by the refusal of the compensation the complainant has preferred this appeal. The appellant had also sent her draft on 5.1.93 which was received by the opposite party on 21.1.93. However, she was not receiving the shares declared being allotted by the opposite party before the District Forum. Only after the appeal was preferred the allotment took place. The opposite party No. 1 would explain away the delay in stating that they have not noticed the change of address of the complainant and that they have sent her shares to her old address and that the same were returned. In this case, there are two instances of negligence by the opposite party No. 1. In the first place in not responding properly to her legitimate request for allotment of shares and compelling the complainant to approach the District Forum. In the second place, they have over-looked the change of address which had been already intimated to them. The opposite party No. 1 would admit those lapses, but would state that there was no wanton act of depriving the complainant of her legitimate rights, that the lapses occurred on account of the enormous size of the business they had to deal with.

The learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant would admit that the complainant did not suffer any substantial loss on account of the belated issuance of shares to her. Her main grievance is that for getting her shares which she could have obtained as a matter of routine, she had it approach the District Forum and then the State Commission, that in the process she had incurred much expenditure apart from having some amount of anxiety till the shares reached her. We, therefore, consider that there is some room for compensation, which in this case we shall limit to a token amount in view of the fairness of the opposite party and their plea of magnitude of dealings.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The complainant is awarded a token compensation of Rs. 500/-payable by the opposite party No. 1 /respondent No. 1 herein. Payment to be done within two months from today, failing which the amount shall earn interest at 15%. No costs. Appeal allowed.