TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Consumer Appeal Dismissed: Complex Share Dispute</h1> The State Commission upheld the District Forum's decision in an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, concerning non-receipt of ... Procedure - On receipt of complaint Issues:1. Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against a District Forum order.2. Failure to issue dividend, bonus shares, and refund excess amount.3. Disputed facts regarding share transfers and renunciation.4. Jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Act to adjudicate complex factual issues.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against a District Forum order dated 7-11-2001. The appellant, Mrs. Manju Bansal, claimed non-receipt of dividend, bonus shares, and refund of an excess amount from Unit Trust of India (UTI). She sought redressal for financial loss and harassment due to the alleged actions of the respondents.2. The respondents contested the appellant's claims, stating no deficiency in service and detailing share transfers to other individuals. The District Forum advised the appellant to seek redressal in a Civil Court due to the complexity of the factual disputes. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant appealed the decision under section 15 of the Act.3. The State Commission, after hearing the appellant's counsel and reviewing the records, noted that the Act does not intend to resolve complex factual issues requiring extensive evidence. Citing precedents, the Commission emphasized that redressal agencies should handle simple issues related to product quality or service deficiencies. The Commission found the appellant's case involved intricate questions of fact, such as share ownership and transfers, beyond the scope of a redressal agency's jurisdiction.4. Consequently, the Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, stating that the appeal lacked merit and dismissing it without costs. The Commission highlighted the need for redressal agencies to refer parties to civil suits for cases involving intricate factual disputes beyond their purview. The judgment underscores the limited jurisdiction of redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in adjudicating complex and contested factual matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
