9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 and the receipt thereon was endorsed by putting stamp of the State Bank of India. The complainant failed to receive any allotment advice. He, therefore, wrote to the respondent No. 2. He was informed that no application had been received from the applicant through, the respondent No. 1. The complainant approached District Forum-H claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000 for deficiency in service. The plea of the State Bank of India, the respondent No. 1 was that no application was received from the complainant and there was no privity of contract with the complainant. The respondent No. 2 also denied having received any application for allotment. District Forum-II held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous. It is well settled law that wherein in criminal proceedings material facts have to be established beyond reasonable doubt, the degree of proof in civil matters is on pre-ponderance of probability. There is no such thing as conclusive proof. The District Forum, therefore, fell into a serious error by expecting the complainant to prove conclusively that application for allotment of shares had been handed over to the Bank by the complainant. The finding of the District Forum that there was no hiring of services for consideration, is again wrong. It is well-known that the Bank, in collecting forms for a public issue, receives commission from the company issuing the shares and the beneficiary is the person who makes the application. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ques on account of application money free of charge. Evidently, the complainant was the beneficiary and, therefore the Bank is liable for damages to the complainant. The fact that ultimately, no share was allotted to the complainant and his case did not disclose a 'consumer dispute' in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 (2) CPJ 7 (SC) helds good only in so far as IFCI is concerned. That does not apply to the State Bank of India which was the collecting Bank. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside and the respondent No. 1, State Bank of India, is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 2,500 which, in our opinion, is just and fair comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
