M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) Common facts in both the cases: The appellants/complainants, husband and wife, have submitted offer for the purchase of 50 shares each, marketed by the first opposite party through the second opposite party, on 10.03.2004 by depositing a sum of Rs.35,625/-. As per the Abridged Preliminary Sale Document, transfer of shares to demat accounts, should be done within 15 days, failing which, for the delayed period, they have to pay interest, at 15% from 01.04.2004.
(2.) The complainants have not received either the share or refund order, within 31.03.2004, as promised in the sale document, whereas the shares were credited on 20.07.2004, committing deficiency of service. Till the date of credit, the complainants were not informed, about the fate of the share and they have also failed to issue refund order. On 10.02.2005, a letter was received with a cheque for delayed period, for a sum of Rs.1552/-, without giving any details. In view of the absence of the details, the complainants have requested to furnish details, the opposite parties failed, despite a letter addressed to the Company Secretary. Had the opposite parties allotted the shares by 31.03.2004 that is within the prescribed period, the complainants would have made lot of money by selling the shares, which was deprived, by the negligent act of the opposite parties, for which, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.1 lakh towards damage for mental agony, in addition to, a sum of Rs.25,000/- for spending of time and money. Hence, the complaints.
(3.) The first opposite party in its identical counter in both the cases admitting their release of shares as well as time contemplated, resisted the complaints, inter alia contending that the Courts at Delhi alone would have jurisdiction and in this view, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction, that even as per the admission made by the complainants, the first opposite party has nothing to do with the dispute relating to the allotment of the shares, as such, there was no privity of contract, if at all anything was done by the second opposite party, and if the delay any had happened, the complainants are not entitled to proceed against the first opposite party, that the Consumer Forum has also no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case, further, contending that they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings.;