VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. PRAKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated the material facts of the case are that Mrs. Prakash Kaur and Mrs. Harbir Kaur, complainants applied for 100 shares each of M/s. Videocon International Ltd. , opp. party-1 in 1992. They submitted application forms alongwith a cheque of Rs.6,000/- each. They received allotment letter dated 17.2.1993 asking them to send call money amounting to Rs.6,000/- each on or before 25.3.1993. It was made clear that late payment with interest @ 18% w. e. f.26.3.1993 was acceptable. The complainant, who had been made firm allotment sent two cheques dated 24.3.1993 of Rs.6,000/- each drawn on Bank of Rajasthan. Towards the end of April, 1997 the complainants came to know that the said cheques had been returned on the ground of insufficient funds. Without waiting for any further letter from the opposite party, the complainants sent two Bank drafts on account of the call money as well as Rs.130/- as interest. Admittedly, the said Bank drafts were encashed by the opposite party on 10.7.1993. The complainants, however, failed to receive the share certificates and, accordingly, approached District Forum for compensation amounting to Rs.50,198/-.

(2.) The opposite parties failed to appear inspite of service. No reply was filed on their behalf. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum observed that the complainants failed to place on record evidence regarding the market price of the shares and that it could not be said with certainty that the complainants would have off-loaded the shares on a particular day when certain rates were prevailing in the market. However, the fact that the opposite party failed to send the share certificates within a reasonable time, amounted to deficiency in service and, accordingly, awarded interest @ 18% p. a. on the sum invested namely Rs.12.000/- each w. e. f.10.7.1993 when the proceeds of the draft were collected by the opposite party till date of payment. Rs.5,000/- was granted to each of the complainants on account of damages for the harassment caused to them. The opposite parties have filed this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. K. K. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Harnam Singh, A/ Rep. of the respondents and have carefully gone through the records.