1993 (11) TMI 172 - Commission - Companies Law

Dismissal of frivolous complaints - Appellants claimed relief and compensation for delay in issuing unit certificates of Master-gain-1992 Scheme purchased from UTI - District Forum allowed interest for a specified period - Whether appellants appeal seeking further raise in quantum of relief had any merit or adequate foundation in absence of meaningful evidence led by them to establish precise quantum of their claim - Held, no

Summary

Issues: Appeal against the order of the District Forum seeking an enhancement of relief granted in a consumer dispute related to the Master-gain-1992 Scheme by Unit Trust of India.

Analysis:
1. The complainants appealed against the District Forum's order seeking an increase in the relief granted. The primary issue was the non-receipt of intimation from Unit Trust of India regarding their applications for units in the Master-gain-1992 Scheme.

2. The appellants claimed that they were entitled to the differential amount between the face value price and the increased price of the unit certificates of Master-gain, along with compensation for alleged mental depression and harassment.

3. The respondents argued that the unit certificates were dispatched to the appellants and must have been received by them. The District Forum acknowledged the delay in issuing the unit certificates and ordered the payment of interest at 18% per annum from October 1992 until the date of receipt of the certificates.

4. The appellants, dissatisfied with the relief granted, sought further enhancement in the quantum of compensation. They argued for a higher differential amount based on stock exchange fluctuations and mental harassment, citing relevant legal provisions and case laws.

5. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found no merit in the appellants' submissions. The appellants failed to establish the significance of the date for entitlement to the allotment and delivery of certificates, or provide substantial evidence of the alleged price fluctuations.

6. The Commission rejected the reliance on specific sections of the Indian Companies Act and case laws cited by the appellants. It was noted that the cited cases were not directly applicable to the current situation, and no substantial evidence was presented to support the claims made by the appellants.

7. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The appellants were not burdened with costs due to their consumer status. The Commission found no justification for further enhancing the relief granted by the District Forum.

Judgment: The appeal was dismissed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, upholding the relief granted by the District Forum and declining to award any additional compensation to the appellants.