JUDGMENT D.K. Kapoor, Member (J) 1. This appeal arises out of final order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Divisional Forum, Jammu whereby following relief has been granted in favour of the appellant: "OP No. 1 to refund an amount of Rs. 1000 along with interest @ 8% p.a., w.e.f. 31.5.1995. The complainant is also entitled to the compensation of Rs. 10,000 which shall be paid by OP No. 1. Cost of litigation is quantified at Rs. 5000." Not satisfied with above award complainant has assailed the Divisional Forum order in appeal before this Commission, seeking enhancement of the compensation etc. His grievance is that the Forum below did not apply its judicial mind on the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed award arbitrarily and in a casual manner. Tersely put, respondent No. 1 flouted TOCDS Shares in August, 1993 for public allotment. The appellant applied for 200 TOCDS shares and made payment of Rs. 1500 in favour of respondent No. 1. On 16.12.1993 RPL, however allotted 100 TOCDS in his favour adjusting the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1500, which was treated as 'Application amount' and further demanded Rs. 2500. Appellant remitted money through respondent's bankers, Indian Bank (IB), Bombay, which was received by the later on January 28, 1994 i.e. well before the last date fixed for such receipt. This is the grievance of the appellant that IB did not respond for about 6-1/2 months and finally intimated the appellant vide letter No. MBA/183510 dated 28.6.1994 that his cheque for Rs. 2500 was not accepted. Of course, delay in intimating the appellant was recorded in the said letter. The appellant forwarded another DD on 13.10.1994 for Rs. 2750 i.e. Rs. 2500 + Rs. 250, an amount of penalty imposed by the OP for delayed payment. In spite of the receipt of above said Rs. 2750 on October 21, 1994, respondents did not allot shares, although he continued to send reminders, one after the other. The appellant has further alleged that after a long span of about 7 years, respondent's Consultant addressed a communication to the appellant on 28.1.2000 stating that whatever he was quoting in his letters as 'First Call money' was in fact the 'allotment money'. The appellant has averred in the complaint that it was only due to sheer confusion created by the respondent that everything was messed-up without any fault of the appellant. The appellant has averred in the complaint that it was only due to sheer confusion created by the respondent that everything was messed-up without any fault of the appellant. Nevertheless he made payment of Rs. 2500, in addition to the above referred Rs. 1500 application money; Rs. 2000 as First Call Money (ICM) dated 10.6.1995; Rs. 2500 dated 22.8.1996 as Second Call Money (II ICM) and Rs. 3000, dated March 11, 1997 as Third/Final Call Money (III ICM) i.e. he paid a total amount sum of Rs. 11,500. Further case of the appellant before the Forum below is that he had made full payment of the entire value of the shares and that too within the time prescribed and yet the respondents continued to harass him without allotment of shares. The appellant had sent the respondent a receipt of Rs. 2000 through their Bankers i.e. Bank of America, New Delhi and yet they demanded encashment details, which is none of their functions. Even the Bank of America, New Delhi asked appellant to collect the Xerox copy of the receipt from the issuing bank i.e. State of Bank of India, ADV-5336, Jammu which is the DD issuing bank and a certificate which is annexed with the complaint (Annexure 29) admitting the issuing of the said DD, a Xerox copy of which was sent to Bank of America and RPL, Hyderabad each. The appellant has made reference to other communications between him and the respondent & their Bankers and has pleaded in clear words that in spite of receipt of Rs. 1500 the respondents have taken into account half payment for allotment of TOCDS, for which they have issued to appellant a share certificate but he did not get any share valuing worth Rs. 5750 and the respondents have redeemed only Rs. 3500, which is arbitrary and whimsical. He has further submitted that he is entitled to: * Total amount due towards undelivered equity shares from the company = Rs. 1,80,973.00 * Amount claimed under litigation expenses w.e.f. Sept. 2000 till final decision including counsel fees and compensation towards physical suffering and mental agony and expenditure incurred on to & fro movements and sectarian requirements = Rs. 3,00,000.00 * As per company law sec. 1,80,973.00 * Amount claimed under litigation expenses w.e.f. Sept. 2000 till final decision including counsel fees and compensation towards physical suffering and mental agony and expenditure incurred on to & fro movements and sectarian requirements = Rs. 3,00,000.00 * As per company law sec. 53(1) 113(1 & 2) the Respondent shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the delay continues and in the present case delay was for 1818 days when appellant got compelled to approach the Hon'ble Consumer Court at Jammu for justice where final award is still awaited, which he worked out as equivalent to Rs. 9,60,500.00 * Total amount claimed = Rs. 13,89,273.00 2. He has, in view of the alleged agony, inconvenience and harassment, as above said, claimed an amount of Rs. 4.50 lac in the complaint before the DF. The Forum below, however awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 with interest @ 8% p.a.; Rs. 1000 (half of Rs. 2000) which he had sent to the respondent after the payment of Rs. 1500. Besides, the Forum below has also awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in addition to the litigation expenses of Rs. 5000. 3. The admitted facts that can be gathered from the circumstances proved on file are that the respondents have received an amount of Rs. 11,500 from the appellant on different dates and there is ample documentary evidence produced by appellant, which is not rebutted. The Forum below has stated not even iota regarding the receipt of this amount of money by the respondents and has only considered the receipt of Rs. 2,000 and allotment of shares to the appellant for the value of Rs. 1000 only. The Forum below committed a grave error of proven facts. 4. Regarding legal aspect of the matter that complaint is not maintainable as the appellant is not a "Consumer" on account of the fact that dealing in shares is tantamount to commercial transaction, which is excluded from the definition of "Consumer" suffice it to say that appellant is not dealing with shares as a trade but dealing in shares randomly, therefore, he cannot be excluded from the definition of 'consumer' under CPA, 1987. The view we are taking herein gets support from law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in 'Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. & Ors. v. Deep Narayan 2013 (2) CPR 786 (NC)'. The view we are taking herein gets support from law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in 'Reliance Polypropylene Ltd. & Ors. v. Deep Narayan 2013 (2) CPR 786 (NC)'. In the RPL case (supra), the facts, as stated in para 2 of the judgment are that the respondent's 500 shares of RPTCL were converted into 150 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) which were not received by the complainant, may be due to the reason that those shares were lost in transit or else. Aggrieved by the act of deficiency in service the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed rejecting the plea of the appellant with respect to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Appeal filed by the appellant before the State Commission also failed. The National Commission has held in paras 5 and 6: "5. Learned District Forum observed that Ops committed deficiency in not delivering 150 shares of ML to the complainant, which were lodged for conversion in 1995. In such circumstances, learned District Forum directed petitioners/OPs to deliver 150 shares of RIL to the complainant within 45 days along with bonus shares and dividend. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not challenge this finding and press this revision petition only to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000. 6. Admittedly, 150 RIL shares are not in possession of complainants since 1995 meaning thereby almost 18 years have elapsed and complainant has been deprived from dealing with his aforesaid 150 shares along with bonus shares declared, if any. Looking to the variation in price of RIL shares in last 18 years, award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 by District Forum cannot be said to be on higher side, which has already been affirmed by learned State Commission." [Emphasis supplied] In the light of above we hold that appellant is a 'consumer' as defined in section 2(d) of the Act and non-allotment of 100 shares (out of 200 for which price was received by respondents) and delayed allotment of 100 shared is an act of acute deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Besides the delay caused in the matter is only intentional and done with a view to frustrating appellant's most genuine claim by unnecessary engaging him in irrelevant corresponding for more than seven long years. Besides the delay caused in the matter is only intentional and done with a view to frustrating appellant's most genuine claim by unnecessary engaging him in irrelevant corresponding for more than seven long years. The appeal is accepted and impugned order is partially modified in terms that instead of Rs. 10,000 awarded as compensation we direct respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) as damages for harassment, mental agony and unnecessary delaying the complainant's most genuine case for more than seven years without his fault. We also enhance litigation charges awarded by forum below from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand). We however direct the respondent shall pay or deposit the award money before DF Jammu within six weeks from receipt of a copy of this judgment or pay the decretal amount directly to the appellant by any recognized mode of payment. A copy of this Judgment shall be served on respondents through registered post on the expanses borne by appellant. We, however, do not disturb rest of the award of forum below. Record obtained from forum below be sent back with a copy of this order and Commission file consigned to record.