TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission awards compensation for delayed share certificates, emphasizes timely communication in consumer disputes</h1> <h3>Unit Trust of India Versus B. Amrutha</h3> The Commission found in favor of the complainant regarding the delay in issuance of share certificates, awarding compensation for the loss suffered. ... Deficiency in service Issues:- Delay in issuance of share certificates- Compensation for mental agony and loss of profit- Deficiency of service by the opposite parties- Quantum of compensation awardedAnalysis:1. Delay in issuance of share certificates:The complainant applied for units in 1991 and sent the required sum of money to the opposite parties. Despite repeated attempts to obtain the original share certificates, the complainant only received duplicate certificates after a significant delay. The District Forum found that the delay in issuing the original certificates caused the complainant to suffer a loss, leading to the award of compensation.2. Compensation for mental agony and loss of profit:The District Forum quantified the loss suffered by the complainant at Rs. 2,000 due to the delay in receiving the share certificates. The opposite parties argued that the complainant could not have made any profit as the shares were not listed on the Stock Exchange. However, the delay in communication and issuance of duplicate certificates caused mental agony to the complainant, justifying the compensation awarded.3. Deficiency of service by the opposite parties:The opposite parties failed to respond to the complainant's registered letters requesting the original share certificates. Despite evidence of the certificates being dispatched, the lack of communication from the opposite parties led to confusion and mental distress for the complainant. The failure to promptly inform the complainant about the dispatch of the certificates was deemed a deficiency of service by the Commission.4. Quantum of compensation awarded:The Commission acknowledged the delay and deficiency of service by the opposite parties but considered the initial compensation amount of Rs. 2,000 excessive. After evaluating the circumstances, including the delay in issuing duplicate certificates, the Commission reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,000. The Commission upheld the District Forum's decision in all other aspects and directed the payment of the reduced compensation within one month.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timely communication and service by the opposite parties in consumer disputes. The Commission recognized the mental distress caused to the complainant due to the delay in issuing share certificates and adjusted the compensation amount accordingly, emphasizing the need for efficient and prompt service in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
