HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. K.C.AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions arise out of the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission, Delhi, hence, are disposed of by common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.08.2002 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. A-675 of 2002 Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal & Ors. and K. Gopalakrishna Nayak & Ors. Vs. Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant K.C. Aggarwal and his family members were shareholders of HFCL and were entitled to allotment of 13100 preferential shares of M/s. Himachal Telematics Ltd. Complainants submitted duly filled application forms along with cheques to OP/State Bank of India, but complainant and his family members did not receive any intimation regarding refund or allotment of shares. Complainants wrote letters to the Company and on checking with their bankers, it was found that applications along with cheques have not been presented to the Company. It is apprehended that applications submitted have been misplaced/lost by Company's banker and Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. (HFCL) and bank are deficient in providing service. Legal notice was issued on 4.6.1994 for allotment of shares, but so far HFCL has not allotted shares. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1/HFCL resisted complaint and submitted that complainant was not a consumer and OP never received applications from State Bank of India, nor amount of cheques of complainants were credited to their accounts before the stipulated closing date i.e. 30.7.1993. It was further submitted that complaint was hopelessly time barred and transaction was for commercial purposes not covered under the C.P. Act. Pecuniary jurisdiction was also challenged and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2/State Bank of India submitted that alleged acknowledgment of applications filed by the complainant and his family members did not bear the initials of any person on behalf of State Bank of India; so, State Bank of India is not responsible. It was further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP and complaint was also time barred; hence, complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that if applications forms were lost in the office of State Bank of India, OP No. 1 has to bear the responsibility vicariously and directed OP No. 1 to issue as large number of shares as complainants were entitled under the prospectus/memorandum. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and modified order of District Forum and directed petitioner/OP No. 1 to issue 200 shares to each of the complainants at the value prevalent on the date of judgment. Complainants as well as HFCL both filed revision petitions against the impugned order.