National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Wg. Cdr. C.R. Mohan Raj V.M. (Retd.), vs Mr. Motilal Oswal on 20 October, 2009
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3480 OF 2009 [Against the order dated 15.06.2009 in Appeal No. 230/2009 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore)] Wg. Cdr. C.R. Mohan Raj V.M. (Retd.), Aged 74 years, Senior Citizen, 454, 6th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 070. Vs. Mr. Motilal Oswal, Chairman & Managing Director, Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Hoeschst House, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Petitioner/Complainant Respondent/Opposite Party For the petitioner/complainant Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. P.D. SHENOY, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Pronounced on : 20.10.2009 ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Petitioner/complainant C.R. Mohan Raj is a retired Wg. Cdr. from the Indian Air Force and a senior citizen. He had entered into an agreement with the respondent-brokerage firm and parted with a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh for investment in shares. It was alleged, contrary to the terms of agreement, that the respondent/opposite party resorted to trade on unprofitable shares with the sole intention of collecting brokerage and gobbled up his entire deposit of Rs.1.00 Lakh.
They possess neither the skill nor the desire to invest the clients deposit in a profitable manner and their callous and negligent conduct has resulted in not only the loss of his deposit but also avoidable mental agony and harassment. A complaint in this background was, therefore, filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (District Forum for short). The complaint had been initially dismissed by the District Forum, which on an appeal before the State Commission was remanded back to the District Forum. Vide its order dated 31st of December, 2008, the District Forum, holding the respondent/opposite party deficient in providing services, has awarded only compensation of Rs.10,000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/-. With regard to the alleged loss of Rs.1.00 Lakh and any other remedy, the District Forum left the matter open for the petitioner/complainant to resort to the provisions of Arbitration as per the agreement or approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.
Not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the petitioner-complainant filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short). A cross-appeal too was filed by the respondent/opposite party. The State Commission, after a careful consideration of the matter, dismissed both the appeals; thereby affirming the order passed by the District Forum.
It is in this background that the petitioner-complainant has filed this revision petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant at the stage of admission. He has contended that both the fora below have erred in awarding only a meager sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the gross-deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party, which stands fully established, as the respondent/opposite party had not obtained any consent for trading in specific shares from the complainant. That the so called power of attorney on the basis of which the respondent company claims to have exercised their option to trade is a fake one and this has been taken note of by the District Forum. It has also been categorically held by the District Forum that the respondent/company acted in violation of the Member Client Agreement and is, thus, guilty of breach of agreement. In this background, learned counsel submits that the fora below ought to have compensated the petitioner/complainant for the loss he has suffered on account of the proven deficiency. He has, therefore, prayed that the compensation be enhanced to the full extent of the actual loss suffered by the petitioner/complainant.
We have perused the records as also have gone through the order passed by both the fora below. We are not impressed with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, who is a well-educated and well-informed member of the society to state that he signed the member client papers, though they were blank at the time of signing them. We further notice that the power of attorney, which though produced at a belated stage before the District Forum executed by the petitioner/complainant authorizing the respondent/opposite party to undertake trade on his behalf, has not been seriously challenged. Contentions had been raised before the District Forum with regard to E-contract notes giving a notice of 24 hours for the client to point out any discrepancy in the transaction. The complainant has not produced any response to such E-contract notes either in electronic form or in writing. Even if the respondent/opposite party had resorted to erratic trading, the petitioner/complainant ought to have been vigilant in monitoring the trading being conducted on his behalf. He ought to have restrained or stopped the respondent/opposite party from trading, about which there is no material on record. In any case, if these allegations are to be investigated, it would require detailed and exhaustive inquiries, which is not envisaged in proceedings before the consumer forum which can deal with a complaint only in a summary manner.
Both the fora below, in our view, have therefore rightly dealt with only the deficiency angle of the transaction between the parties and have left the complicated question of recovery of the invested amount and its remedy before an appropriate forum. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission.
This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR.
P.D. SHENOY) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/