Appeal dismissed due to late filing, complainant entitled to share transfer. Cross-appeal for compensation enhancement also denied.

The appeal was dismissed by the Commission due to being filed after the statutory period, citing administrative delays. The complainant was considered a 'consumer' under the Act, entitled to share transfer. The delay in transferring shares due to a dispute with Registrars was not justified. The cross-appeal for enhancing compensation was also dismissed. The Commission directed the parties to be informed of the order and quantified costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Limitation for filing an appeal.
2. Whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' under the Act.
3. Justification for delay in transferring shares due to a dispute with Registrars.
4. Enhancement of compensation.

Analysis:

1. Limitation for filing an appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal after the statutory period, citing internal administrative delays as the reason for the delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Commission as it did not find sufficient cause for the delay. The Commission emphasized that the appellant should have taken necessary measures to file the appeal within the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal failed on the ground of limitation.

2. Definition of 'consumer' under the Act:
The appellant contended that the complainant did not fall under the definition of 'consumer,' citing a Supreme Court case. However, the Commission disagreed, stating that the complainant, who had purchased shares from the secondary market, had acquired the right and title to the shares. As a beneficiary, the complainant was entitled to request the transfer of shares in his name. The Commission distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court case, concluding that the complainant was indeed covered under the definition of 'consumer.'

3. Delay in transferring shares due to a dispute with Registrars:
The appellant argued that the delay in transferring shares was due to a dispute with its Registrars. However, the Commission found this explanation insufficient, noting that the Registrars were the company's agents and that the complainant did not receive the shares within the statutory limit of two months. As a result, the Commission found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs.

4. Enhancement of compensation:
The respondent had filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Commission, after considering the facts, determined that no case for enhancement of compensation had been established. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, upheld the complainant's status as a 'consumer,' rejected the justification for the delay in transferring shares, and dismissed the cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation. The costs were quantified, and the parties were directed to be informed of the order.

---