SEEMA GANAPATI KASHI Vs. SILVER LINE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above noted revision petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against common order dated 15.4.2010, passed in First Appeal Nos.340 & 344 of 2009 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharashtra State (short, "State Commission").

(2.) Brief facts are that Petitioner in the year 1993, had purchased certain shares of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 Company, she submitted the same to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 for transfer in her name. In 1995, the shares were transferred in the name of the petitioner and share certificates were dispatched to her. It appears that share certificates were lost in transit. Thus, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai (short, "District Forum") alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents.

(3.) Respondents contested the complaint. In their written statement, respondents took the plea, that shares have already been transferred in the name of the petitioner and dispatched to her. It is further stated that respondents will issue duplicate certificate in lieu of the same, provided Petitioner comply with the necessary formalities. It is also stated that petitioner is not a "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, 'Act') and as such complaint is not maintainable.