Challenge in these proceedings is to the common order dated 8.12.2010 passed by A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in F.A. Nos. 1533 of 2008 and 1532 of 2008. The appeals before the State Commission were filed against an order dated 18.08.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, partly allowing the complaint of the complainant-petitioner and directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @12% per annum together with punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, both the sides had filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal of the opposite party-M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant seeking upgradation of the relief to the extent that he may be awarded compensation. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. -3- The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaint and passing of the order by the District Consumer Forum and lastly by the State Commission, have been amply-noted in the orders of fora below and need no repetition at our end. For deciding the present petition, we may simply note that once M/s Satyam Computers Services Limited had declined to transfer the shares in favour of the complainant on the premises that they had received representation from the original allottee of the shares, Smt. Shradha Argaonkar and so advised the complainant to seek a declaration from a civil court, the complainant filed a civil suit before the competent civil court which was answered in his favour and soon thereafter shares were transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant was within its right to have sought any other relief to which he considered himself entitled to if he was so interested but in the civil suit, he made no claim for any compensation/damages and simply sought an injunction/declaration which was granted in favour of the complainant. In our view, once the shares had been transferred in the name of the complainant pursuant to the direction given by the competent civil court, the complainant was not well -4- advised to file any complaint for any further relief. In any case, we do not see any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-opposite party in the whole transaction. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for interference by this Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limini. | 
