Consumer Commission rules in favor of opponent due to dishonored payment, not liable for alleged loss.

The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the opponent. The Commission held that the opponent was not obligated to allot the shares as the cheque payment was dishonored by the complainant's bank. Additionally, the opponent was not found negligent in refusing a demand draft received after completion of formalities. The Commission concluded that the opponent was not responsible for the non-allotment of shares or the alleged loss and mental agony suffered by the complainants.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged failure to allot right equity shares to complainant No. 2.
2. Claim for compensation for loss and mental agony due to non-allotment of shares.

Analysis:
1. The complainants alleged that the opponent failed to allot 1,500 right equity shares to complainant No. 2, despite payment being made through a cheque that was dishonored by the bank. The complainants sought compensation for the alleged loss suffered. The Commission noted that the opponent was not obligated to allot the shares if the cheque was dishonored by the complainant's bank. The opponent could not be blamed for the dishonor of the cheque by the bank. The complainants contended that the opponent should have informed them about the dishonor, but the Commission held that there was no such obligation on the opponent. The Commission concluded that the opponent could not be held responsible for the non-allotment of shares in this case.

2. The complainants further claimed compensation for the alleged loss suffered and mental agony. They sent a demand draft for the amount payable for the shares, along with interest, after the formalities for allotment were completed. However, the opponent refused to accept the demand draft, stating that all formalities for allotment had been completed. The Commission found that since the demand draft was received after the formalities were completed, the opponent could not be held liable for not allotting the shares to complainant No. 2. The Commission held that the opponent was not guilty of negligence or deficiency in service. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the opponent.

In conclusion, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no merit in the allegations made by the complainants. The Commission held that the opponent could not be held responsible for the non-allotment of shares or for the alleged loss and mental agony suffered by the complainants. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---