National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sanjay Chandra Agarwal vs India Bulls Securities Ltd., on 15 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2014 (From the order dated 01-12-2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 126/2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh) Sanjay Chandra Agarwal C-8, H. Park, Mahanagar, Lucknow Appellant Versus India Bulls Securities Ltd., Having its Regd. Office at: F-60, 2nd Floor, Malhotra Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. And its Branch Office at: 226, Sahara Shopping Centre, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Through its Managing Director/ Branch Manager Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Chadha, advocate PRONOUNCED ON 15th JANUARY, 2015 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01-12-2014 passed by the Learned State Commission in Complaint No. 126 of 2010 Sanjay Chandra Agarwal Vs. India Bulls Securities Ltd., by which complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant opened two accounts - one in his individual name and another in his HUF name in the year 2006 with opposite party/respondent for sale and purchase of shares in cash as well in future. It was further alleged that irregularities were committed by opposite party in maintaining accounts which caused loss of Rs.7,43,571.40/- in one account and Rs.24,42,510.65/- in another account as opposite party has not adhered with Stock Exchange rules. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that dealings of shares was done as per instructions of the complainant and further raised objection that as transaction was commercial in nature, complaint was not maintainable.
State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as complaint was pertaining to commercial transaction against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as there was only deficiency pertaining to not following National Stock Exchange Regulation No. 3.10 and no compensation has been claimed on account of commercial activities, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint, hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to State Commission to decide it on merits.
5. Admittedly, complainant opened two DEMAT accounts with opposite party one in his own name and another in his HUF name and share transaction were carried out by the complainant on account of which loss was caused. Complainant has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that he carried out transaction in aforesaid accounts by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood. In the absence of such plea learned State Commission in the light of judgment of this Commission and Honble Apex Court rightly observed that aforesaid deficiency was pertaining to commercial transaction and complaint was not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Regulation 3.10 (b) of National Stock Exchange of India (F&O Segment), opposite party was bound to square off the transaction but as opposite party did not square off on the next day loss was caused, which is deficiency on the part of opposite party. Perusal of Regulation 3.10 (b) clearly reveals that by this Regulation trading member i.e. opposite party was given liberty to close out transactions by selling or buying derivative contracts and by this regulation it was not obligatory on the part of the opposite party to square off transaction on the subsequent day. Even if any deficiency can be imputed on the basis of aforesaid regulation complainants transactions were purely commercial transactions and aforesaid services were taken for commercial purposes and in such circumstances complaint was not maintainable before State Commission. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint and allowed complainant to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.
7. I do not find this case fit for admission and is liable to be dismissed in limine at admission stage.
8. Consequently appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
....
(K. S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER aj