1994 (5) TMI 196 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the District Forum seeking enhancement of relief granted.
2. Consumer jurisdiction and locus standi of the appellant.
3. Delay in issuance of units leading to escalated prices and allotment issues.
4. Negligence of respondent's bankers and subsequent complaint for interest and compensation.
5. Ex parte proceedings due to non-appearance of respondents.
6. Relief granted by the District Forum limited to interest and refund of excess amount.
7. Arguments presented by counsels regarding missed opportunities, dividends, mental agony, and financial expenses.
8. Agreement between parties for allotment of 700 units and payment of dividend.
9. Calculation of compensation amount for missed opportunities, mental harassment, and financial expenses.
10. Directions for respondent to complete allotment and pay the specified amounts within a stipulated time frame.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the District Forum seeking enhancement of relief granted to the complainant. The President of the Commission noted that the respondent's authorized representative did not contest the consumer jurisdiction issue, leading to a discussion on the locus standi of the appellant. The appellant had applied for 700 units of the UTI Unit Scheme in 1991, but due to the default of the respondent's bankers, the relevant certificate was not issued promptly, resulting in the escalation of unit prices and the allotment of only 550 units to the appellant, causing grievance.

The respondents did not appear or file a reply, resulting in ex parte proceedings. The District Forum limited the relief to the award of interest to the appellant and the refund of any excess amount. The appellant's counsel highlighted the hardships faced, including missed opportunities for rights offers, dividends, mental agony, and financial expenses. The respondent's representative agreed to allot 700 units and pay the computed dividend, with the remaining compensation to be calculated for missed opportunities, mental harassment, and financial expenses.

The Commission directed the respondent to complete the allotment of 700 units, pay the dividend amount, and compensate the appellant with a specified sum. The relief granted was enhanced, and the respondent was given a two-month deadline for compliance, with enforcement provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the appellant was awarded additional compensation, dividend, and costs as per the judgment.