SHEETAL MITTAL vs SIDHARTHA SPINFAB LIMITED

THIS is an appeal filed against order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) vide which Complaint Case No. 330 of 1996 filed by the appellant Ms. Sheetal Mittal was allowed with consolidated costs of Rs. 1,100/- which included token compensation for delayed despatch of the stickers to her. The complaint filed by the other complainant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely, Ms. Ruchi Mittal, Sh. Varinder Mittal and Ms. Sushma Mittal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

THE appellants filed joint complaint bearing No. 330 of 1996 belonged to one family and represented through Mr. J.R. Mittal, Advocate, had common grievance against the respondent/O.P. - Siddhartha Spinfab Limited, New Delhi before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II). THE complainants make deposits in the public issue of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each of the respondent - Company which was published in September, 1994. THE application money along with applications were deposited with the authorised Bank of respondent Company at Chandigarh and each complainant was allotted 1300 shares vide allotment advice dated 26.11.1994 (Annexures C-1 to C-4). All the complainants alleged that they had made the final payment in respect of the shares allotted to them on 17.6.1995 but they were not supplied the necessary stickers for fixing the same on the share certificates to make them as fully paid up shares. It was contended that after filing of the complaint, stickers were issued to the complainants by the respondent Company in July, 1996 and thus the respondent Company delayed the supply of the stickers. THE complainants claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum together with costs of litigation. A short reply was filed by the respondent on 10.7.1996 wherein it was contended that the final payments were made in June, 1995 and the Company dispatched the stickers firstly in September, 1995, then in March, 1996 and lastly in July, 1996. On the first two dates the stickers were dispatched under Certificate of Posting (U.P.C.) whereas on the first and the last occasion, the stickers were sent by registered post. The complainants have admitted that they received the stickers sent by the respondent Company in July, 1996 and disputed the fact that the stickers were sent earlier in September, 1995 and in March, 1996.

The District Forum-II believed the stand taken by the respondent/O.P. in the written statement regarding the delay in sending the stickers to the complainant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. However, so far as complaint of complainant No. 1 Ms. Sheetal Mittal is concerned, it was found that there was a clerical mistake in describing her Folio No. 2267 in the unpaid list and the record was corrected and full paid up stickers were sent to her. Regarding the other folios in respect of the other three complainants, which was mentioned in the letter dated 9.3.1996 sent by the O.P. with their shares were already appearing as full paid up shares and stickers had already been despatched to them, as mentioned earlier, under Certificate of Posting on 6.9.1995 on their respective addresses. Since the District Forum-II believed the defence version of the respondent in relation to the complaint of complainant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, their complaint was dismissed with no orders as to costs. While the complaint of Ms. Sheetal Mittal was allowed and as stated earlier, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,100/- as a consolidated amount which included a token compensation for delayed despatch of the stickers.

FEELING aggrieved, the complainants including Ms. Sheetal Mittal have filed this appeal. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent Company which was served sufficiently but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Company to contest this appeal. The record of the complaint case was summoned. We have heard Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate appearing for the appellants. We have also carefully perused the impugned order and the record of the case.

MR. B.B. Mittal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the reply filed by the respondent/O.P. was not even corroborated by affidavit and still the version as contained in the reply was preferred over the sworn testimony in the shape of affidavit by the appellants/complainants. The reply before the District Forum-II was filed by Shri Prashant Jain, Managing Director for Siddhartha Spinfab Limited. The stand taken in the sub-para (a) of the reply is that the payment stickers to be affixed to the share certificates/document is merely and solely for the purpose of identifying and indicating that money has been paid to the Company in respect of specified calls. In sub-para (b), it was alleged that the sticker''s sole purpose is thus to indicate proof of payment only and serves no other purpose and has no consequential value. These two sub-paragraphs have been mentioned in the reply regarding the purpose for which the stickers are supplied by the respondent to the complainants. In sub-para (c), it was mentioned that the payments were made by the complainant only in June, 1995 and stickers for such payments were sent on the following dates : (1) September, 1995 under U.P.C. (2) Again in March, 1996 Copies of such stickers - Under U.P.C. (3) Further for the third time in July, 1996 - Under Registered Post.

MR. B.B. Mittal, Advocate contended that the important papers like stickers representing the full payment of the value of the shares allotted to the complainants should not have been sent under U.P.C. and such important documents were required to be sent under Registered A.D. Post which mode was adopted by the respondent in July, 1996. MR. B.B. Mittal, Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. @ Balasaheb Vikhe Patil & Ors., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 678, wherein it has been held that a Certificate of Posting is easy to procure and does not inspire confidence. Apart from it, it was contended that the respondent vide letter dated 16.2.1996 addressed to the appellant No. 1 showed that a notice was issued to her expressing an intention to forfeit the shares for non-payment of the value of the shares. It has been contended that in the face of this notice dated 16.2.1996, the stand taken is contradictory. We find from perusal of the record of the District Forum-II that the complainants relied on the evidence which was led in the shape of affidavit of Ms. Sheetal Mittal in which the cases of all the complainants was deposed to. There appears to be no valid reason for the District Forum-II to ignore the sole testimony of appellant No. 1 Ms. Sheetal Mittal and to accept the uncorroborated version of the respondent taken in the short reply. So far as the case of appellant No. 1 Ms. Sheetal Mittal is concerned, she has been allowed compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,100/- which is described as consolidated costs including a token compensation for delayed despatch of stickers. The consolidated amount of Rs. 1,100/- have not splitted to give any idea as to what was the amount which was awarded as token compensation for delayed despatch and what was the costs of litigation which was awarded to her. In our considered opinion, the consolidated costs of Rs. 1,100/- is inadequate and there is no question of awarding a token compensation when the deficiency has been proved by the appellants on the part of the O.Ps. in failing to send the stickers within a reasonable period. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- would be just and adequate amount of compensation to be awarded to each complainant for the delay in issuance of the stickers. Apart from this, the complainants are entitled to the costs of litigation which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/-.

SO far as the claim of interest @ 24% per annum is concerned, it may be mentioned that the appellants can ask for either compensation or interest but they are not entitled to get both. The interest is awarded by way of compensation.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum-II is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to each of the complainant for the delay in issuance of the stickers and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of complaint case as well as appeal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.