Consumer & Human Rights Forum            -- Appellant 
                        Vs.
Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.                    -- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Kapoor, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

B.K. Taimni, Member.

     The Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the complaint was that Shri K.L.Kukkar had purchased 100 shares of the Respondent Company. They were sent for endorsement on 5th February 1994, but they were not returned after endorsement till September, 1994. This case was taken up on behalf of the Complainant by the Consumer and Human Rights Forum, Fazilka, Punjab and complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service by way of time taken by the Respondent in issuing endorsement to the 100 shares purchased by the said Shri Kukkar. The State Commission after perusing the material and evidence on record found that the Respondents were deficient in rendering service and relying upon the Judgement in the case of Manjit Kaur Vs. Unit Trust of India & Ors. 1994 (1) CLT 586 awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the Complainant along with interest @ 18% from February 1994 as also cost of Rs.500/-. Not being satisfied by this relief, the Appellant has filed this Appeal for enhancement of compensation on the ground that as a result of non-endrosement, he was not able to sell the shares which affected his house construction activities. He also states that they suffered a loss of over Rs.17.88 lakhs.

     The Complainant was not present on the date fixed. He has submitted his written arguments which we have carefully gone through. His case is based on the fact that normally it should take only one month for the endorsement after its lodgment but in this case six months was taken and in between the prices of the shares had gone up to Rs. 630/- per share on 20th July, 1994 and on that ground alone he is entitled to higher compensation.

     The Respondent remained absent despite notice. Undoubtedly, there has been delay in the endorsement made by the Respondent. We are neither concerned nor satisfied with the explanation given by the Respondent that the written request of the complainant was given to the concerned clerk who misplaced this and they had taken appropriate action by way of publishing loss in newspaper and to serve the interest of the Complainant/share holders. For any act or error within the office of the Respondent, complainant cannot be faulted. There is enough material on record to show that while the shares were under endorsement and remained so for almost six months, prices of shares had gone up. In our view, the compensation awarded is far too inadequate which we increase to Rs. 20,000/- but we find that the interest awarded is on the higher side which we reduce to 12% per annum. In the result, the Appellant-Complainant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12% from 9th February , 1994 till the date of payment alongwith the cost of Rs. 2,000/-. This amount shall be paid within four weeks failing which the rate of interest shall come up to 15% per annum.