SQN. LDR. GURDIAL SINGH vs UNITED LAND AND HOUSING LTD.

THE two complainants before the State Commission, Chandigarh, who are husband and wife, had purchased 2000 shares each in M/s. United Land & Housing Co. Ltd. (first respondent company) in December, 1985 and January, 1986 respectively with a stipulation that the Company will repurchase these shares if so required by the complainants after the expiry of three years. THE grievance with which the complainants approached the State Commission, Chandigarh, was that the Company had defaulted in honouring their undertaking to re-purchase all the shares, since it had re-purchased only 400 shares. THE State Commission investigated into the complaint and awarded to the complainant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 33,600/- being the buy-back value of 1,600 shares at the rate of Rs. 21/- per share and Rs. 42,000/- to the complainant No. 2 as buy-back value of 2,000 shares.

THE complainants have come up with First Appeal No. 115/92 contending that they should have been awarded also adequate compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused to them by reason of the failure on the part of the Company to re-purchase all the shares. First Appeal No. 124/92 has been filed by the United Land & Housing Limited (Opposite Party No. 1 before the State Commission) and the main contention raised by the appellant is that the dispute raised by the complainants before the State Commission was not a ''Consumer dispute'' at all and hence no relief should have been granted to the complainants under the Act.

After having heard both sides, we have come to the conclusion that First Appeal No. 124/92 filed by the Company has to be allowed and its contention that the complaint did not raise a ''consumer dispute'' has to be accepted. The transaction between the parties was plainly one of sale of shares by the Company to the complainant with a stipulation for re-purchase of the shares within a period of three years. This was purely a transaction of sale of goods with a condition for re-purchase and not an agreement of hiring of any service. There being no defect in the goods sold, there was no cause of action for the complainants to initiate proceedings under the Act in respect of the said transaction of sale of shares. Inasmuch as we have already held that there was no transaction of hiring of service involved in this case, the dispute raised by the complainants cannot be regarded as a consumer dispute that which can be legitimately brought before the consumer Forum for adjudication under the Act. The resultant situation is that the complainants should not have been granted any relief at all by the State Commission and the complaint petition should have been only dismissed.

WE accordingly allow First Appeal No. 124/92, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss complainant petition No. 105/91 on the file of the State Commission, Chandigarh. First Appeal No. 115/92 filed by the complainants will stand dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Appeal No. 115/92 dismissed. Appeal No. 124/92 allowed.