State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Stock Holding Corporation Of India Ltd vs 1. Smt.Vimal Raosaheb Chougule, on 20 March, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/08/3
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/10/2007 in Consumer
Complaint No.281/2006 of District
Forum, Sangli)
Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.,
Branch Officer Gomtesh, 111, Mahaveer Nagar,
Sangli.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt.Vimal Raosaheb Chougule,
Post-Ashta, Taluka Walva, Dist.Sangli.
2. Hemant Natwarlal Shah,
Block No.4, First floor, Preeti Apartments,
Mehta Hospital Road, Timber Area, Sangli.
3. Natwarlal Manilal Shah,
Block No.4, First floor, Preeti Apartments,
Mehta Hospital Road, Timber Area, Sangli.
............Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
R.C.Chavan, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR. Dhanraj
Khamatkar, MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-advocate for the
appellant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
(Per Honble Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member ) [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/10/2007 in Consumer Complaint No.281/2006, ( Sou.Vimal Raosaheb Chougule vs. 1. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. & ors.), passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangli (District Forum in short).
[2] Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
Complainant was having 89 shares of Siemens, 100 shares of Oriental Bank, 250 shares of ICICI Bank and 220 shares of Hindustan Lever.
Complainant opened a D-mat account in the opponent no.1 Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. and the transaction of the said shares were done by the opponent no.2 and 3 who were the share brokers. On 16/06/2005, the complainant received phone call from the opponent no.1 company stating whether the complainant have sold her shares. The complainant stated that she has not sold the shares. Opponent No.1 Company had called a joint meeting of the opponent no.2 & 3 and the complainant and in the said meeting, opponent no.2 & 3 had promised to pay the amount of the shares. However, opponent no.2 & 3 had not paid the amount of shares.
It is the contention of the complainant that she has not given any application or her consent for selling the shares and the opponent no.2 & 3 without the consent of the complainant have sold the shares and the opponent no.1 Company had allowed the transaction without verifying her signature. Alleging transfer of shares without any authority deficiency in service on the part of opponents, the complainant has filed consumer complaint praying that the shares should be transferred in her name.
[3] Opponent no.1, Stock Holding Corporation of India had contested the complaint stating that the transfer of the shares had been effected because of negligence of the complainant herself. Complainant had handed signed transfer receipts to the opponent no.2 & 3 and authorized them make all transaction through them. Opponent no.1 further contended that they used to dispatch the monthly statement of the shares. However, complainant had not perused the same. Complainant had filed the complaint with the police against the opponent no.2 & 3 only. Opponent no.1 had raised point of jurisdiction and also contended that the complainant is not a consumer.
[4] Opponent no.1 & 2 remained absent though duly served and hence they were proceeded ex-parte.
[5] District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponent no.1, rejoinder filed by the complainant, evidence filed by both the parties and pleadings of the advocates came to conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent no.1 and directed that 50 shares of SBI, 121 shares of Reliance Capital & 30 shares of ONGC be transferred in the name of the complainant along with dividend from June 2005 and shall pay `7,000/-
for the mental agony and `3,000/-
as costs before 25/12/2007.
[6] Aggrieved by the said order, Stock Holding Corporation of India has filed the present appeal. We heard Adv.Ashutosh Marathe for the appellant. Respondent has chosen to remain absent. We have gone through the evidence on record, order passed by the District Forum. Admittedly, respondent no.1 deposited shares in the appellant/opponent no.1 Stock Holding Corporation of India. Most important question in the present case is whether the respondent no.1 is a consumer in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the Economic Transport Organization vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd. - 2010 CTJ 361 (SC) (CP), the appellant company provides depository facility.
Investor within the meaning of Depositories Act, 1996 and for that purpose is registered as a Depository Participant (DP) of National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) and Central Depository Service Ltd. (CDSL). During the course of its business as a Depository Participant, it facilitates dematerialization of securities by the issuer companies.
Dematerialization is process by which a person who is holding security certificate in physical form can get his physical certificate converted into electronic balances and holding the same in his account with a DP. This particular nature of service offered by the appellant company is not in dispute. Respondent no.1 does not claim any such service was hired from the appellant.
Thus, it will be clear that the nature of the service hired from the appellant and for which deficiency in service is alleged relates to a commercial transaction i.e. trading in shares for profit and loss. Therefore, services of the appellant were hired for commercial purpose and under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consumer who hired services for commercial purpose is not a consumer and hence, this proceedings is not a consumer dispute.
[7] Further, the appellant used to send monetary statement regarding the account of the shares. However, respondent no.1 has not bothered to see the same. It is also on record that the transaction of the shares was handled by the respondent no.2 & 3 in the name of the respondent no.1.
In fact, intimation of selling of the shares had been given by the appellant. District Forum without appreciating the evidence on record had proceeded on hypothetical basis and drawn adverse interference which cannot be sustained in law. When the respondent no.1 itself is not a consumer without looking into vital aspect, the learned district forum has passed the order without going through the evidence. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be supported in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Order dated 23/10/2007 in Consumer Complaint No.281/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli is set aside.
Consequently, consumer complaint no.281/2006 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 20th March, 2014.
[HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.C.CHAVAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR] MEMBER pgg