Case Law Details
ICICI Bank LTD. Vs Santosh Sardana & 2 ORS (NCDRC)
Consumer protection Act is a beneficial legislation and hyper technicalities shall not create obstacles for Consumer
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, in case of any ambiguity, the clauses must be read in favour of consumer. The hyper technicalities cannot create obstacles for the Consumer.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 25.10.2021 of the State Commission, Delhi
Brief facts of the case, were that in December 2005, public issue of ICICI Bank opened. As per the terms of the public issue, i.e. Clause 40 of Form 2A it was informed that each investor was required to submit one Cheque of full amount alongwith the Application Forum. The complainants jointly applied for 100 equity shares in the public issue of the ICICI Bank opened in December 2005. The application was submitted through their stock broker for the purchase of 100 shares of ICICI Bank in the said initial Public Offering. The complainants submitted two cheques for Rs.11,000/- and Rs.4,000/-. After lot of efforts made by the Complainant to know the statues of the Application, the complainant came to know that as per terms of the issue i.e. Clause 40 of Form 2A, only one cheque was required to be submitted alongwith the application form. However, the complainants had filed more than one cheque, hence the application of the complainants was rejected.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
