ORDER

This revision petition questions the order passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur dated 10.05.2012, whereby the order passed by the District Commission dated 28.02.2008 has been upheld that arose out of CC/372/2006.

2.       The facts in brief appear to be that the two complainants, Dr. Rajdendra Ghiya and Smt. Beena Khandelwal had purchased about 250 shares of the petitioner company and sent the same to the petitioner along with a transfer deed for transferring the same in their names. The allegation was that having transferred the said shares, the share certificates were not sent back and it is this deficiency which led to the filing of the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur.

3.       Notices were issued but the revisionist does not seem to have put in appearance despite due service of summons on them. The evidence affidavit was filed by the complainant and the District Commission concluded that the 250 shares purchased by the complainants had been dispatched but they were neither returned back nor any intimation about transfer was given, as a result whereof the complainants suffered a financial loss of Rs.3,66,575/- on account of this deficiency and the loss deserved to be compensated. The complaint was allowed with a direction to make payments coupled with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.

4.       The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission being appeal no. 1209 of 2008 and it was revealed that the complainants had earlier filed a complaint that was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed before the State Commission being appeal  no. 371 of 2005 that was dismissed on 07.07.2005. The earlier complaint had been dismissed because the complainants had also filed a Civil Suit that was dismissed and then an appeal filed before the learned District Judge had also been dismissed. Against the said dismissals, Second Appeal No. 58104/2005 had been filed but the same was disposed off with the observation that the complainants can file their complaint afresh. Copies of these orders of the Civil Court and of the High Court are not on record.

5.       The State Commission has noticing the above facts categorically recorded that in compliance of the order of  the High Court dated 27.07.2005, the complaint giving rise to the present controversy was filed. As noted above the complaint went ex parte as the petitioner did not appear to contest the same and accordingly it was finally decided on 28.02.2008, against which the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal without entering into the merits of the matter and observed that the amount which had been deposited by the appellant/ petitioner be paid to the complainants.

6.       The revisionist before this Commission has filed a written synopsis through its counsel on 16.11.2023 and in paragraph 9, thereof it has been stated that a sum of Rs.3,60,575/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the complainants. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and he submits that this revision petition now practically survives for the amount of Rs.12,000/- which remains to be paid in terms of the final order of the District Commission.

7.       On 25.02.2016 the question as to who was effectively holding the shares at present seems to have been canvassed, when the following order:

“Counsel for petitioner seeks time to apprise this Commission as to who is the shareholder at present of the shares in question. He is directed to file an affidavit to the effect as to who is the shareholder of the shares in question at present, and who is getting the dividend as on date. Needful be done within four weeks.

List for admission hearing on 05-07-2016.”

8.       The affidavit sworn by Mr. Ajay Nadkarni, the General Manager and the Company Secretary of the appellant com