SHEETAL MITTAL Vs. SIDHARTHA SPINFAB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) vide which Complaint Case No.330 of 1996 filed by the appellant Ms. Sheetal Mittal was allowed with consolidated costs of Rs.1,100/- which included token compensation for delayed despatch of the stickers to her. The complaint filed by the other complainant Nos.2, 3 and 4 namely, Ms. Ruchi Mittal, Sh. Varinder Mittal and Ms. Sushma Mittal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

(2.) The appellants filed joint complaint bearing No.330 of 1996 belonged to one family and represented through Mr. J. R. Mittal, Advocate, had common grievance against the respondent/o. P.- Siddhartha Spinfab Limited, New Delhi before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II ). The complainants make deposits in the public issue of equity shares of Rs.10/- each of the respondent - Company which was published in September, 1994. The application money along with applications were deposited with the authorised Bank of respondent Company at Chandigarh and each complainant was allotted 1300 shares vide allotment advice dated 26.11.1994 (Annexures C-1 to C-4 ). All the complainants alleged that they had made the final payment in respect of the shares allotted to them on 17.6.1995 but they were not supplied the necessary stickers for fixing the same on the share certificates to make them as fully paid up shares. It was contended that after filing of the complaint, stickers were issued to the complainants by the respondent Company in July, 1996 and thus the respondent Company delayed the supply of the stickers. The complainants claimed damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum together with costs of litigation.

(3.) A short reply was filed by the respondent on 10.7.1996 wherein it was contended that the final payments were made in June, 1995 and the Company dispatched the stickers firstly in September, 1995, then in March, 1996 and lastly in July, 1996. On the first two dates the stickers were dispatched under Certificate of Posting (U. P. C.) whereas on the first and the last occasion, the stickers were sent by registered post. The complainants have admitted that they received the stickers sent by the respondent Company in July, 1996 and disputed the fact that the stickers were sent earlier in September, 1995 and in March, 1996.