Case nº Revision Petition No. 1425 of 2008 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 11, 2014 (case Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Snehlata Agarwal)
|For Appellant: M.J.S. Rupal, Advocate and For Respondents: Party-in-Person
|K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Vinay Kumar, Member
|August 11, 2014
|National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2631 of 2002 - Stock Holding Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Smt. Snehlata Agarwal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent opened Demat account in the name of M/s. Snehlata Agarwal and Bharat Kumar Agarwal in the office of the opposite party. On 25.7.2000, complainant deposited 500 shares of M/s. Antarkita Graphics Ltd. for Demat and after three months, OP informed complainant that Demat application of the complainant has been rejected by M/s. Antarkita Graphics Ltd. OP neither informed reasons for rejection, nor returned share certificates. In the meantime, prices of shares increased and complainant suffered loss of Rs.21,120/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP was proceeded ex-parte before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.21,120/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner and petitioner was only to transmit the request for Demat, which was done by him; even then, District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that petitioner failed to give reasons for rejection in time and failed to return share certificates and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Perusal of record reveals that complainant deposited shares for Demat on 25.7.2000 and OP despatched share certificates on 1.8.2000, which were received by NSDL on 4.8.2000. It appears that the concerned Company to whom the shares were sent for Demat rejected...
To continue readingRequest your trial