PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. TECH MAHINDRA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 13.8.2007, passed by the Uttar radesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission') in appeal No.2609/SC/2001, Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar and appeal No.2610/SC/2001, Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Vs. Nand Kishore, vide which, while allowing the said appeals, the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 9.11.2000, in Consumer Complaint No.306/2001 and Consumer Complaint No. 305/2000, allowing the said complaints, were set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the two cases are that the complainants/petitioners, Pankaj Kumar and Nand Kishore purchased a total of 400 shares, i.e. 200 shares each @ Rs.21.42 per share of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., now known as Tech Mahindra Ltd. , for a sum of Rs.8,568/- on 9.12.1995, vide Bill No.1857 from the market through a broker M/s S.C. Gupta & Company. It is the case of the complainants that after the purchase, the said shares were misplaced by them, but they recovered the same in November 1999, by which time, the limitation period to get the shares transferred, had already expired. The complainants got the limitation period extended upto 30.12.1999 from the Registrar of Companies on 1.12.1999. The complainants sent the shares alongwith transfer deeds through courier to the respondent company for transfer of the same in their names. However, both the complainants did not receive the said shares from the OP/respondent after doing the needful. Even after writing letters to the OP/respondent and contacting on telephone and meeting them personally, the shares were not sent back to them. The complainants sent legal notices also to the OP/respondent, but despite that, no action was taken. The consumer complaints no.305/2000 and 306/2000, were then filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 10.7.2000, alleging deficiency on the part of the OP in not transferring the shares to the complainants. The District Forum vide their orders dated 9.11.2000 decided the complaints giving directions to the OP company to issue 200 shares each to the complainants with the same folio number, distinctive nos. etc. alongwith 200 bonus shares. Since, the OP company did not appear before the District Forum, the complaints were decided ex parte against them. The OP/respondent, however, filed appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been decided in their favour, the complainants are before us by way of the present revision petitions.

(3.) During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the OP company had indulged in deficiency in service towards them, because they had not transferred the said shares in their names, despite sending the transfer deeds to them.