USHA BAVEJA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six appeals have been filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against a common order dated 22.1.1998, passed by District Forum-II (South), in Complaint Case Nos.118/97, 119/97, 120/97, 121/97 and 122/97. All the five cases were disposed of by a common order by the District Forum. The dispute in all the cases is the same and hence all the six appeals are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: all the complainants are holders of equity shares of the respondent-Steel Authority of India Limited. The respondent had declared dividend of 0.60 p. per equity share in the Annual General Meeting held on 26.9.1995. However, the dividend warrants were not issued to the appellants despite several reminders. The appellants demanded the dividend amount with interest and filed separate complaints before the District Forum. However, the complaints were dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that no deficiency has been proved against the respondent. The learned District Forum also imposed a cost of Rs.250/- on the complainant in each case under Sec.26 of the Act as it found the complaints to be frivolous and vexatious. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainants have filed these appeals challenging the order dated 22.1.1998.

(3.) The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that they had issued dividend warrants to the appellants within 42 days from the date of the Annual General Meeting. However, when they were informed by the appellants that the dividend warrants had not been received by them, the respondents checked up their record and found that the dividend warrants sent to the appellants were not received back undelivered in their office. Hence the respondent agreed to issue duplicate warrants of due amount to each of the appellant and requested the appellants to submit an indemnity bond on the approved format on plain paper. However, the appellants failed to furnish the required indemnity bond and hence duplicate dividend warrants were not issued.