State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S India Infoline & Securities (P) Ltd. ... vs M.B.Nataraj on 8 March, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED: 08/03/2011 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 5261/2010 1. M/s India Infoline & Securities (P) Ltd. Nirlon Complex Building, No.24, 1st Floor, Opp. Western Express Highway, Goregaon(East), Mumbai 400 063. 2. M/s India Infoline Securities (P) Ltd., Arkis Arcade, Tilak nagar Main Road, Shimoga City 577 201. By its vice-President. (By Shri/Smt M/s N.K.Law Associates ) .. Opposite Parties before the DF .....Appellant/s -Versus- 1. M.B.Nataraj S/o.Bobbaiah, aged about 65 years, Retired Professor in Kannada Sneha, No.49, Near Infant Jesus Church, Sharavathi nagar, Shimoga City 577 201. . Complainant before the DF .....Respondent/s ORDER
HONBLE JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is by the appellants / Ops challenging the order dated 29-10.2010 passed by the DF, Shimoga in complaint No.71/2009 whereby the appellants herein are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,61,444/-, the value of sale proceeds of shares together with interest at 12% pa w.e.f. 8.5.2007 along with Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section15 of the Consumer Protection Act on various other grounds.
2. This is second round of litigation. In the first instance the appeal filed by the respondent / complainant came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the DF for fresh trial and to dispose of Complaint No.71/09 to give its findings on the points referred to by this Commission.
3. On remand, the DF allowed the complaint passing the impugned order as referred to above which made the appellants to present this appeal.
4. The case of the respondent / complainant as against the appellants is for a direction to pay the sale proceeds of shares pertaining to the complainant in a sum of Rs.2,61,444/- as on 8.5.2007 as per entries and seeking for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing financial loss and damage to the reputation of the respondent.
5. On retirement, the respondent intends to invest his retirement benefits and therefore he opened the account in the branch office at Shimoga of the appellant and deposited two blocks of HDFC shares having first block bearing numbers 11619411-11619469 bearing the equity shares having face value of Rs.10/- of Rs.50/- and the second block bearing number 11619461-11619510 being the equity shares of same value. The market value of the HDFC shares as on 24.4.2007 being Rs.1,65,344/- as per NSC/BSF Cash/NSE FOLBDOER which was standing in the name of respondent. The case of the respondent / complainant is that the appellants without his knowledge committed mischief and sold out the shares pertaining to him.
6. The respondent deposited 100 shares under two different sets of material share certificates and the respondent urged that he deposited the shares with the rules and regulations as per the advice of the appellant and gave instructions to sell the said shares at an appropriate time. At a later point of time, the complainant came to know that Ops have indulged in unfair trading. This has made the complainant to inform the Ops not to involve in any unfair trading in his account without his permission. In spite of this, he received the information over phone about the trading of his shares unauthorizedly by selling the complainants 100 HDFC shares without the knowledge and permission of the complainant which made the complainant to suffer huge financial loss.
7. The appellants appeared before the District Forum and contested the case by filing their version contending that the transactions in respect of the complainants shares have been done with the consent of the complainant and the information and accounts are sent through internet, e-mail and statement of accounts were entered into the customers trade account. The Ops denied the allegation of the complainant in respect of misuse or mishandle of unfair trade practice in respect of shares of the complainant. The Ops before the DF prayed for dismissal of the complaint on various other grounds.
8. The parties have filed their affidavit evidence in respect of their case and produced certain documents. The documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and R1 to R3 on behalf of complainant and Ops respectively. The Manager of appellant got examined as RW-1. Both the parties have put forth their oral arguments and filed the written arguments. The District Forum after having considered the same allowed the complaint which made the appellants this time to prefer this appeal.
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent deposited two blocks of HDFC shares bearing two numbers being the equity shares having facing value of Rs.10/- and Rs.50/- each. The respondent / complainant informed the Ops not to deal with his shares unfairly without his knowledge.
10. On remand, the District Forum on the basis of the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by this Commission in A.No.29/10 has considered the allegations of the complainant and the defense of the Ops. Also considered the fact of deficiency in service whether committed or not committed by the Ops.
11. The case of the appellants is that the DF has failed to consider the minute material facts available on record. The detailed examination and cross examination of the parties are very much necessary and without any expert opinion on the documents relating to the trading transaction and when the respondent failed to abide by the rules and regulations of the OP company, the way the DF passed the impugned order is totally incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside.
12. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant / Ops have not produced any material evidence to show that the respondent has given any consent to make transactions for selling of the shares of the respondent. The appellants have not produced any express consent letter to trade in the account of the respondent.
The appellant / Ops should not have allowed some unconnected persons to operate with the account of the respondent / complainant without permission. But the defense of the appellants in respect of the above is totally different. It is also clear from the impugned order that the appellants have benefited from out of the shares of the respondent by selling them.
13. The District Forum in its impugned order recorded its findings how the appellants have misused the shares of the respondent, about their deficiency in service.
The Forum after having considered all the aspects regarding the pleadings of the complainant, defense taken by the opposite parties, the documents and the evidence before it has very well considered and rightly comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, which in our opinion does not call for any interference. We are in full endorsement with the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. The amount deposited by the appellants in this appeal shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the complainant after due notice to him.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Nrr* *