Consumer compensation for delayed preferential share allotment was limited to a token award despite proven administrative lapse.

A consumer complaint over delay in allotting preferential shares turned on the opposite party's failure to act on a proper application and to update the complainant's changed address, causing avoidable delay and forcing resort to the consumer fora. The Commission noted that administrative burden did not excuse the lapse, and that the complainant had incurred expense and anxiety even though no substantial monetary loss was proved. Compensation was therefore justified, but the absence of significant loss supported only a token award.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for the opposite party's delay and lapse in allotting the preferential shares despite a proper application and intimation of change of address.

Analysis: The opposite party failed to respond promptly to the complainant's legitimate request for allotment and also overlooked the intimated change of address, resulting in avoidable delay and the need for the complainant to approach the consumer fora. Although no substantial monetary loss was shown, the complainant incurred expense and suffered anxiety in pursuing what should have been a routine allotment. The opposite party's explanation of administrative burden did not erase the lapse, but the fairness of its conduct and the absence of substantial loss justified only a limited award.

Conclusion: The complainant was entitled to compensation, but only in a token sum of Rs. 500.

---