The appellant, as a lady purchasing shares for personal use, is considered a consumer. The respondent's failure to transfer the shares despite receiving them and a reminder constituted clear deficiency on their part.

Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Lakshmanna, Member—This appeal has been filed by the un-successful complainant in C.D. No. 25/1996 on the file of District Forum, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

2. The complainant, a resident of Machilipatnam, purchased five shares of the opposite party from the secondary market through a sub-broker and sent the share certificates alongwith transfer deed with necessary stamps on 8.6.1994 to the opposite party for effecting transfer. The opposite party though received them did not effect transfer of the shares and sent a letter dated 3.2.1995 seeking certain clarification. The complainant sent a letter of Mr. A.V.V. Satyanarayana, dated 30.11.1992, who sold the certificates to the complainant. However, after that there was no response from the opposite party nor the shares were transferred, hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party in its counter denied the allegations made in the complaint. They contended that the complainant was not a consumer as the transfer of the shares was a commercial activity and secondly that the share certificates were never received by the opposite party and the complainant did not produce any proof to prove otherwise.

Since no evidence was produced, the District Forum accepted the contention of the opposite party that the letter dated 8.6.1994 which was supposed to have been sent under registered post acknowledgement due was not received by the opposite party and they received a subsequent letter dated 20.12.1994 and on this ground that complaint was dismissed, hence the appeal.

4. After going through the records and hearing the arguments, we find that the respondent/opposite party has disputed everything except accepting that they received a letter of the appellant/complainant dated 20.12.1994 which is a reminder requesting the respondent/opposite party to effect transfer of the shares to which the appellant received a reply on 3.2.1995 in which the respondent asked the appellant to send a contractual evidence of purchasing the shares and the covering letter through which the shares were sent for transfer along with proof of respondent having received the said documents to do the needful in the matter. However, they disputed having received a letter dated 8.6.1994 and basically on this ground, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is not mentioned anywhere that the appellant is a broker or a sub-broker, on the other hand, the appellant is a lady, who has purchased the shares for her personal use, hence she is a consumer.

5. The appellant brought to our notice acknowledgement of a letter which was posted on 9.6.1994 and received by the respondent on 22.6.1994. It was argued in the appeal by the respondent that the appellant always stated that the letter was dated 8.6.1994 while this acknowledgement shows that the letter was posted on 9.6.1994. This objection is superfluous since the letter dated 8.6.1994 can always be posted on 9.6.1994 especially when it is a registered post letter with acknowledgement due and the respondent has received the same on 22.6.1994. Hence we have no doubt that the appellant sent the shares for transfer to the respondent and the respondent having received the same has not only denied having received but also not effect transfer though she sent a reminder subsequently which was duly acknowledged by the respondent. Under the circumstances, we find that there is clear deficiency on the part of the respondent and hence the order of the District Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed directing the respondent to effect transfer of the said shares in favour of the appellant and also pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- in both Fora put together. Time for compliance six weeks.

Appeal allowed.