National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Isf Commodities (P) Ltd. vs Multi-Commodity Exchange Of India Ltd. on 3 March, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Consumer Complaint No. 29 OF 2010 ISF Commodities (P) Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at: 111, Jeevanvilla Building, Dayanand Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110 002 Complainant Versus Multi-Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. (MCX), A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at: Exchange Square CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400 093 Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE mR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER For the Complainant :Shri Mudit Sharma, Advocate and Shri Ravi Gopal, Adv. For the Opp. Party : Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate Dated __3rd March, 2010 ORDER
JUSTICE K. S. GUPTA, MEMBER Complainant was a member of the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed OP No. 22/09 seeking direction to the opposite party to pay amounts of Rs. 3,45,99,786/- towards the loss suffered on account of non-squaring of the accounts, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation towards loss of reputation and Rs. 10,00,000/- as damage towards loss of opportunity and business which was dismissed at admission stage by the order dated 13.2.2009. Complainant filed M.A. No. 38 of 2009 for reviewing the order dated 13.2.2009 which was dismissed by the order dated 24.2.2009. Aggrieved by both these orders the complainant has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 1744-1745 of 2009 before the Supreme Court. In appeal the complainant filed interim applications seeking stay of the implementation of the letter dated 13.4.2009 whereby complainant has been called upon to clear the settlement liability within four weeks from 13.4.2009 failing which the opposite party is to proceed against the complainant for declaring it as defaulter. After notice the applications came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.5.09 in following terms:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to withdraw these applications with liberty to the applicant to take such other remedy as is available to it under law.
The interlocutory applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
Opposite party is stated to have issued letter dated 14.12.2009 declaring the complainant as defaulter. In the present complaint filed alleging unfair trade practice, complainant has made prayer which is reproduced below:-
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Commission may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,21,50,000/- for the loss and damages suffered by the complainant on account of the deficient service and unfair trade practice;
(b) direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs. 11,00,000/- towards loss of reputation/defamation and mental harassment;
(c) direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- towards legal costs incurred till date;
(d) award the costs in favour of the complainant; and
(e) pass such other and further order(s) as this Honble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present complaint.
We have heard Shri Mudit Sharma for the complainant and Ms. Surekha Raman for the opposite party on admission. In our view, grant of the reliefs prayed for is dependent on declaration of the opposite partys decision conveyed through the letter dated 4.12.2009 being bad in law and such a declaration can be granted only by the civil court having jurisdiction in the matter and the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would, therefore, not lie. Decisions in Civil Appeal No. 1879/2003-Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., decided by the Supreme Court on 9th February, 2009 and Punj Lloyd Ltd. vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.- 2008(16) SCALE 304 relied upon by Shri Sharma have no applicability to the issue on hand. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
J. (K.S.GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER .J. (R.K.BATTA) MEMBER vs