HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. PRAVINBHAN PAJIRAM MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by HDFC Bank Limited -Original opponent No. 1, against whom order has been passed and certain reliefs granted by the learned Forum in Case No. 556 of 2005 on 11.9.2006.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been filed wherein notice has been issued and in pursuance thereof Ms. Khyati. S. Modi has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. We have heared Mr. S.J. Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Khyati S. Modi, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1. It is required to be noted that during the pendency of complaint the shares have been transferred to the Demat account of the complainant and, therefore, that part of the order has been complied. Ms. Modi has also admitted that the shares have been transferred to the Demat account of the complainant. Therefore the only question which is required to be dealt with by this Commission is about Rs. 10,000 awarded for cost and mental agony. The learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Mehta has mainly concentrated and argued that the appellant is not responsible for not sending the shares in time to the original opponent No. 2 company. But the evidence on record and finding given by the Forum clearly establish that the appellant failed to give physical shares in time to respondent No. 2 Company and therefore in absence of physical shares, they have not credited the same in the Demat account of the complainant. The record shows that the shares have been handed over by the complainant to the appellant on 25.9.2003 and the same has not been credited into his account till 1.9.2006 i.e. for a considerable period of three years. The argument advanced by Mr. Mehta is that the appellant is not at fault but respondent No. 2 Company is at fault. If it is so, then also it is inter se dispute between opponent Nos. 1 and 2. But as far as complainant is concerned, he has handed over the shares for the purpose of demating the same to the appellant. The appellant has not sent the same within time and because of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, same could not be credited into the Demat account of the complainant till 1.9.2006. Not only that if the shares have been credited on 1.9.2006, the bank would have taken contention before the Forum and the Forum would not have passed order regarding allotment of shares, etc. Under the circumstances, in our opinion instead of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and cost awarded by the learned Forum Rs. 10,000 should be awarded for mental agony and cost which would be just and reasonable. No other contention has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant. As the shares have already been credited into the account of the complainant relief No. 4 will not survive. Hence, qua that order is quashed and set aside. As far as relief No. 5 is concerned, same is partly allowed as above. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER

(3.) THE appeal is partly allowed to the extent that instead of Rs. 20,000 awarded for mental agony and cost, we award Rs. 10,000 No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.