M PARTHASARATHY Vs. ITC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE one of us, i.e., Mrs. M. Shreesha, was a Member to the impugned order, list the case for final hearing today itself before Bench No.6.

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the Company inter -alia on the ground that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. The Company justified its refusal to transfer the share before it was split into the share of face value of Rs. 1 each, on the ground that there was difference in the signature appearing on the transfer deed and the specimen signature of the transferor available in their record. It was pointed out in the reply that the transfer deed which the complainant had submitted on 14.09.2005 had to be returned since it was invalid and therefore did not confirm to the guidelines issued by the SEBI, the date of execution being prior to the date of presentation to the prescribed authority.

(3.) VIDE its order dated 19.07.2007, the concerned District Forum directed the Company to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant alongwith costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/ -. The District Forum, however, did not direct transfer of shares in question in favour of the complainant.