State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nirmal Singh Sidhu vs Sbi Capital Securities Ltd on 3 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 237 of 2012 Date of Institution 19.07.2012 Date of Decision 03.08.2012 Nirmal Singh Sidhu r/o 1542-B, Sector 51, Opposite Society Housing, Chandigarh. .Appellant/Complainant V E R S U S 1. SBI Capital Securities Ltd., 191, Tower F Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 through its Managing Director. 2. SBI Capital Securities Ltd., SCO No.43-48, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties (II) First Appeal No. 238 of 2012 Date of Institution 19.07.2012 Date of Decision 03.08.2012 Neelima Sidhu r/o 1542-B, Sector 51, Opposite Society Housing, Chandigarh. .Appellant/Complainant V E R S U S 1. SBI Capital Securities Ltd., 191, Tower F Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 through its Managing Director. 2. SBI Capital Securities Ltd., SCO No.43-48, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
Argued by: Sh.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.
PER NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, involving the common question of law and facts, directed against the order dated 11.06.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2011 Nirmal Sidhu Vs. SBI Capital Securities Ltd. and another and Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011-Smt.Neelima Sidhu Vs. SBI Capital Securities Ltd. and another.
2. The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.95 of 2011-Nirmal Sidhu Vs. SBI Capital Securities Ltd. and another.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 2000 shares of Unitech and 500 shares of Texmo Pipes through the Opposite Parties. The complainant requested the Opposite Parties to transfer the shares in his Demat Account No.1204720000122954. It was stated that the said shares were not transferred to the demat account of the complainant. Consequently, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, which told him that the shares were lying in the Pool Account, and the same would be transferred, in his Demat Account, very shortly. The complainant was also provided statement (Annexure A-1). It was further stated that even thereafter, the shares were not transferred in the Demat Account. Therefore, the complainant wrote letters dated 30.07.2010, 31.08.2010 and 21.09.2010 (Annexures A-2 to A-4) but to no effect. It was further stated that the complainant received letter dated 09.09.2010, wherein, he was assured that the matter was being investigated. The complainant received another letter dated 26.10.2010, whereby, he was informed that the complaint filed by him was verified and it was found that there were no transactions through Demat request/off market request/corporate actions credit/IPOs credit or payout from brokers, which would have resulted in the holding of scrips in the holding statement dated 16.06.2010 issued by the Chandigarh Branch office. It was further stated that, according to the Opposite Parties, the holding statement dated 16.06.2010 purported to have been issued by the erstwhile Branch Manager of Chandigarh appeared to be manipulated and fraudulent.
It was further stated that the statement (Annexure A-6) sent by the Corporate Office on 01.07.2010 reflected the correct position of the account as there were no shares in the DP Account of the complainant as on 30.06.2010. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests to Opposite Party No.1, and intimated it, that the holding statement (Annexure A-1) was supplied by its Branch Office and from that statement, it was very much clear, that the complainant was having shares, in his account, but despite that the shares were not transferred to his Demat Account. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
4. In Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011-Smt.Neelima Sidhu Vs. SBI Capital Securities Ltd. and another, the complainant purchased 2000 shares of ASTEC and 2000 shares of IFCI. Almost identical allegations were made as were made in C.C.No.95 of 2011 aforesaid.
5. In their written reply, the Opposite Parties stated that they are trading Members on Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange and duly registered with SEBI. It was further stated that the complainant had opened a trading account after executing the KYC documents including Member Client Agreement. It was further stated that they place order as per the instructions of their clients for buying and selling of shares on exchange and issue contract notes for the executed trades. It was further stated that the holding statement dated 16.06.2010 (Annexure A-1) appeared to be manipulated and fraudulent. The Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 26.10.2010, requested the complainant to provide documentary evidence, with regard to the purchase of scrips appearing in the holding statement but he failed to do so. Even the complainant neither mentioned as to when he purchased these shares, nor did he present the proof thereof. It was further stated that the shares were actually not purchased by the complainant but for the reasons best known to him, the present controversy was raised. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the shares, in question, could not be transferred in the Demat Account of the complainant. It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the complainants purchased the shares, in question, for earning his/their livelihood through the respondents for which the account payee cheques were issued in the name of SBI Capital Securities and the same were credited in their account on different dates. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to consider the fact that Annexure A-1 i.e. statement of account, duly stamped and signed, was issued by the officials of the respondents. He further submitted that the respondents received the payments through different cheques for the purchase of the shares. He further submitted that when the complainants requested the Opposite Parties for the transfer of shares, they were trying to escape their liability by stating that the holding statement dated 16.06.2010 (Annexure A-1) placed by the appellants was manipulated and fraudulent. He further submitted that the respondents were duty bound to supply the statement of account, from time to time, which they failed to do. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.
11. The appellants assailed the order of the District Forum, by placing reliance upon the document (Annexure C-2), issued by the State Bank of Patiala and submitted that the aforesaid document shows that the payments towards the purchase of the shares were debited to their account and credited to the account of the Opposite Parties from time to time. On perusal of the District Forum file, it has been observed by us that no such document was ever placed before it. During the course of arguments, the complainant was specifically put a query, as to whether, the document relied upon by him at the appellate stage, was ever produced, before the District Forum to which, his answer was, in the negative. No reliance could be placed upon the document, which was not placed before the District Forum, and the same could not be read into evidence at the appellate stage, particularly when, no application for placing on record the same, by way of additional evidence, was ever filed by the appellant, at the time of filing the appeal. We are, thus, of the considered view that in the absence of the aforesaid document, the District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the complainants failed to prove that they had purchased the shares, in question, by making payments through the aforesaid cheques [(Annexure A-7 (colly.)]. The District Forum was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that the affidavit of the person who issued the statement (Annexure A-1) was not placed, on record, to prove that the said statement issued by him/her was correct as per the records of the Opposite Party, whereas, Sh.Sandeep Kumar Verma, Area Manager, SBICAP Securities Ltd., filed his affidavit, to the effect, that the holding statement (Annexure A-1) was a manipulated document, and no purchase of shares, as mentioned, in this letter, was made by the complainant. With these observations, we are of the considered opinion, that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
12. No other point has been argued by the Counsel for the appellants/complainants.
13. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. A certified copy of this order be placed in the connected Appeal bearing F.A.No.238 of 2012.
16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance.
Pronounced. Sd/-
03 .08.2012 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.] PRESIDENT cmg sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER