State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. India Info Line Securities Pvt Ltd., ... vs 1. Sri Pullapantula Murli Kantha Rao And ... on 29 October, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.287 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.09 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-II VISAKHAPATNAM Between: 1. India Info Line Securities Pvt Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, P.No.B-23 Road No.16V, Thane Industrial Area Wagle Estate, Thane-604 2. India Info Line Securities Pvt Ltd., rep. by its Branch In-charge, Opp: ICICI Bank, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam Appellants/opposite parties no.1 & 2 A N D 1. Sri Pullapantula Murli Kantha Rao S/o late Rama Krishna Rao, Aged about 63 yrs, Retired Executive Engineer R/o D.No.50-94-15/7, Shantipuram Visakhapatnam Respondent/complainant 2. Air Linkers rep. by its Manager Arunodaya Complex, Cellar Cellar, Shop No.1, Dwaraka Nagar 1st Lane, Visakhapatnam (R2 is not necessary party) Respondent/opposite party no.3 Counsel for the Appellant M/s N.Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents Served QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The first respondent has filed complaint before the District Forum seeking , i) to return the shares i.e., IPCL 98 shares, RIL 60 shares, Punjab & National Bank 34 shares and Reliance communication 60 shares, ii) to transfer the holdings of IDFC 20 nos, Reliance energy Ventures-60 nos. and Reliance Natural 60 nos,
iii) to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and iv) to pay costs.
2. The District Forum has awarded the following reliefs:
i) to return the shares i.e., IPCL 98 shares, RIL 60 shares, Punjab & National Bank 34 shares and Reliance Communication 60 shares.
ii) to transfer the holdings of IDFC 200 nos, Reliance energy Venture-60 nos. and Reliance Natural-60 nos.
iii) to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and
iv) to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.
3. ` The first respondent has submitted that he was allotted d-mat account No.ID-10176266 by the appellants and on being requested by the second appellant, he deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 16.12.2005 and subsequently on his request the second appellant returned the amount to him. It is submitted that with an intention to discontinue the service of the appellants, he addressed letter dated 9.03.2006 by instructing them to stop buying and selling the shares and transfer the scripts of IPCL-98, PNB-34, RIL-60, IDFC-200, Madras Fertilizers-1000, Orissa Sponge Iron-15, UCO bank
-100,Rel.Cap.Ventures-60, Rel.Communication Venture-60, Reliance Energy Venture
-60, Reliance Natural Venture-60 to his new account opened in M/s Integrated Services.
4. The first respondent has submitted that he found four foils bearing 192451 to 1922454 missing from the booklet and that as per Slip No.192452 the appellants transferred Madras Fertilizers-1000, Orissa Sponge Iron 15, UCO bank 100, Rel.Cap.Ventures 60 to the new D-mat account held with M/s Integrated Enterprises on 10.04.2006 and failed to transfer the other scrips of IPCL-98, RIL-60, PNB-34, and Reliance communication 60 and the said shares were transferred to another client ID No.10390623 from his account.
5. The first respondent had made complaint to NSDL that his signature was forged on the slip . Further, he has submitted complaint to the appellants that his signature was forged on requisition slip, courier receipt and the slip bearing number 2097868 and he got issued notice to the appellants and even after receiving the notice, the appellants had not transferred th4 4 major shares to his account.
6. The claim was resisted by the appellants contending that they had not given any assurance to the first respondent of the returns. It is submitted that the first appellant sold Mangalam Cement Shares from the first respondents account though he was not having the same in his account and by adjusting them from the account of another client with ID bearing no.10390623, upon the understanding between them that the first respondent has to buy the shares before evening and he has to replace them and accordingly, an amount of `1,24,513/- was credited to the account of the first respondent.
7. It is contended that the first respondent instead of buying the shares of Mangalam Cement in order to return the amount of `1,24,513/- to the client with ID bearing no.10390623, addressed letter dated to the appellant with instructions not to trade, with an intention to grab the amount of `1,24,513/-. The appellant no.1 through the appellant no.2 had sent delivery instructions to the first respondent and the first respondent had acknowledged them. He has violated the trade custom by not returning the shares to the client bearing ID No. 10390623 from whom the shares were brought for sale. It is contended that the first respondent admitted that he had sent the shares to the appellant through Integrated Enterprises and that they have not committed any irregularity.
8. The first respondent in support of his claim, filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1to A16. On behalf of the appellants, ExB1to B14 had been marked.
9. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have filed appeal contending that the first respondent is not a consumer and that the first respondent traded Mangalam Cement Shares even though he did not have those shares in his account. It is contended that as per arbitration clause in the agreement and in view of allegation of fraud and forgery in transfer of shares, the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. The counsel for the appellants had filed memo of written arguments.
11. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
12. The facts beyond any dispute are that the first appellant had engaged the service of the first appellant and the courier service of the second appellant by the appellant. The first respondent had charged the appellants with forgery of his signature on requisition slip, courier receipt and the slip bearing number 2097868.
13. There are several disputed questions of facts in regard to trading of shares from the account of the client bearing ID No. 10390623 to the D-mat account of the first respondent and the disputed signature of the first respondent on requisition slip, courier receipt and the slip bearing number 2097868 etc.
14. The matter involves examination and cross examination of witnesses and appreciation of voluminous documentary evidence as also finding out whether the documents are fabricated for the purpose of the claim. As such, the parties are required to be relegated to civil court for proper adjudication of the matter.
15. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Munimahesh Patel the insurance company disputed the genuineness of the documents and the Honble Supreme Court held that where the matter involves adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions, Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the matter and the complainant was entitled to seek relief in court of competent jurisdiction.
9. The Commission noted that the specific stand of the appellant was that there was mis-declaration in the proposal form and the false claim that the respondents wife was a teacher which as now appears is not the correct position. It also accepted that she was really not a teacher.
10. Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.
11. The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.
12. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission.
13. Above being the position, the Commission was not justified to deal with the matter in the manner as was done. In our view, the directions of the State Commission were more appropriate keeping in line with the nature of dispute. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
16. The National Commission in Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust vs Orissa small Industries and another III(2007) CPJ 316(NC) and Omprakash vs Allahabad Bank III(2206)CPJ 418, held that the matter involving adjudication of disputed questions of fact has to be tried by competent court. Thus, we are inclined to give opportunity to the complainant to approach competent court for adjudication of the matter.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The first respondent/complainant can avail his remedy in appropriate forum and on approaching the appropriate forum, he is entitled to the benefit of exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the complaint and the appeal. The matter is remitted to the District Forum to return the complaint to the complainant. No costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER KMK* Dt.29.10.2012