UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Vs. SHANKAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNIT Trust of India was the opposite party before the State commission on a complaint filed by the respondent. State Commission by its order dated 19.5.1995 held deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not allotting 500 right shares to the respondent-complainant whereas it had received the requisite amount within the period as specified by it.

(2.) MASTER shares of the appellant were issued on right basis from 15.3.1989 to 14.4.1989 and the allotment was made on 29.5.1989. Complainant deposited Rs. 6,000/- with Bank of India (since discharged from any liability by the State Commission) on 11.4.1989 for transmitting the same to the appellant. Bank had said that the amount was sent to the appellant before 14.4.1989 which fact could not be denied by the appellant. Since the complainant did not hear anything either from the Bank or the appellant regarding allotment of right master shares it was by letter dated 9.7.1991 that he was informed by the appellant that the complainant was not allotted right shares.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission, appellant has come before us. It was submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant that since complainant was only prospective allottee of master shares and moreover he wanted to resell the master shares, he could not be termed as a consumer. His further submission was that the complaint was barred by limitation as the allotment of shares closed on 29.5.1989 to the knowledge of all concerned. We are unable to accept any of these three contentions. It was not the case of new allotment of shares but that of right shares to which complainant was entitled to on the strength of his holding original shares, he would certainly be a consumer and the dispute raised would be consumer dispute. The objection that the respondent was to resell the shares would appear to be irrelevant as there is nothing on the record to support this contention. Even otherwise it is not the case of the appellant that complainant was indulged in sale and purchase of shares. Complainant came to know about non-allotment of shares to him by letter of the appellant on 9.7.1991 from which date he would have a cause of action to file the complaint. It was within the limitation.