AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant applied for 500 equity shares of the respondent -Company vide application dated 22.4.92 alongwith cheque for Rs. 2,500/ -. The complainant received information about non -allotment but failed to receive the refund of Rs. 2,500/ -. He filed a complaint with D.F. -II after notice. The plea of the O.P. before D.F. was that refund order dated 3.7.92 had been sent at the correct address and the same had been encashed under signature of Ashok Kumar Gupta. The learned D.F. held that there was no deficiency in service and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant filed this appeal.
MR . A.N. Gupta, Authorised Agent was asked whether the complainant could be considered a consumer in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Dass, II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC). Mr. Gupta submitted : (i) This ground was not taken by D.F., implying that it was not available to this Commission; (ii) Morgan Stanley was distinghishable on the ground that in that case even application for allotment had not been made while in the present case, it was made.
There is no merit in either of the submissions. Powers of this Commission are not confined to grounds taken by the D.F. while dealing with the matter under appeal. The distinction pointed out is a distinction without a difference as far as question of ratio is concerned. In our view, the case isclearly covered by Morgan Stanley (supra). Whatsoever remedy, the appellant might have by a regular suit, the agencies made the C.P. Act have no jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Complainant be informed. Appeal dismissed in limine.