1. THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite parties against the impugned order dated 27.3.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission '') in S.C. Case No. FA/220/2011 - Reliance Polypropylene Ltd Vs. Deep Narain Gupta by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent ''s 500 shares of RPPL were converted into 150 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), which were not received by the complainant. As per request of OP No. 3, complainant also executed indemnity bond in respect of 200 shares, which according to OP 3 were misplaced/lost. It was further alleged that without any specific instructions from the complainant, OP transferred rest of the shares to a third party; namely, M/s. Credit Capital Investment Trust Co. Ltd., Mumbai and thus, by not delivering 150 shares of RIL, committed deficiency in service and filed complaint before the District Forum. OPs contested and submitted that District Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint and denied all the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs 1, 2 & 3 to convert shares of RPPL into 150 shares of RIL and deliver shares with bonus shares and dividend to the complainants since 1994 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.
3. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners does not challenge impugned order and order of District Forum on merits, but challenge only to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is totally unwarranted; hence, revision petition be allowed to this extent. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as shares are in possession of the petitioners since 1994 and respondent has been deprived of transacting aforesaid shares, awarded compensation is not on higher side; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
4. LEARNED District Forum observed that OPs committed deficiency in not delivering 150 shares of RIL to the complainant, which were lodged for conversion in 1995. In such circumstances, learned District Forum directed petitioners/OP to deliver 150 shares of RIL to the complainant within 45 days along with bonus shares and dividend. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not challenge this finding and press this revision petition only to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Admittedly, 150 RIL shares are not in possession of complainants since 1995 meaning thereby, almost 18 years have elapsed and complainant has been deprived from dealing with his aforesaid 150 shares along with bonus shares declared, if any. Looking to the variation in price of RIL shares in last 18 years, award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by District Forum cannot be said to be on higher side, which has already been affirmed by learned State Commission.
5. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in upholding award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and in such circumstances, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
