State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tarkeshwari Maudgil vs Religare Securties Ltd. on 29 February, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 29.02.2016 Date of arguments heard : 28.01.2016 Complaint Case No.144/11 IN THE MATTER OF: Ms. Tarkeshwari Maudgil D-102, Rosewood City Sourth City II, Near Sohna Road Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001 Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Haripriya Maudgil ...........Complainant Through M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket New Delhi- 110017 .......Opposite Party CORAM O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial) S.C. Jain (Member) 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) This order will dispose of application under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act moved by the OP on 2.5.14 for dismissing the complaint at the threshold. The application recites that present complaint has been filed for compensation of Rs.26.50 lacs. Complainant is aggrieved by the squaring off her positions on account of margin shortfall on 19.10.07. The complaint filed on 9.5.11 is barred by limitation. The complainant has tried to cover up limitation by stating that the cause of action arose on 30.3.10 when conciliation proceedings initiated by National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL) FAILED. The complainant again relied upon said letter for the purpose of payment proceedings. She had already availed remedy of arbitration before the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. in which award dated 25.11.10 directing the OP to pay Rs.2,36,675/- has been passed. The parties preferred appeal before the appropriate tribunal which was dismissed. Than parties filed cross objections to award which are registered as OMP No. 511 to 2011 and OMP No.461 of 2011 and are pending in the High Court of Chennail.
OP has mentioned in nutshell that the case of the complainant is that on account of undistributed margin shortfall in her account, OP squared off her positions at the prevailing rates of the Exchange as per the Agreement due to which complainant suffered losses. Such claims are of superlative nature and are outside the Act. Complainant is not a consumer. As per decision of the National Commission in Unit Trust of India v. Sabitri Devi Agarwal Vol. II (2000) CPJ 4 (NC). Similar view was taken by Punjab State Consumer dispute Redressal Commission in Sunita Rani v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vol.III (2006) CPJ 350 and by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in R. Ravi v. R. Raju Vol. II (1996)CPJ 206.
The complainant has sent written submissions dated 27.1.16 maintaining that the OP had already been proceeded ex-parte. The same is not on record. Rather record shows that the application under consideration was kept pending to be disposed of alongwith final disposal, vide order dated 22.9.14. That approach is not in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sagar vs. A Bal Reddy (2008) 7 SCC 166.
It has been held that question relating to maintainability of the complaint should be decided first. On merits, the complaint had denied that case is based on difference in square of rights and subsequent loss for the same. According to her, the OP has not understood the claimants grievances.
During the course of arguments, the Counsel for the OP relied upon decision of the National Commission in V.K. Agarwal (Dr.) v. Infosya Technologies Lltd. & Ors. Vol. I (2013) CPJ373 in which when complainant had any business of shares and nowhere pleaded in complaint that he was dealing with share business as 'self-employment' for livelihood, the complaint was dismissed. To the same effect is the decision of the national Commission in RP No. 3382/2010 titled as Krishan lal Kalra v. M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. & Ors. decided by the National Commission on 30.1.15. That case pertains to the case of the OP in the case in hand.
In the last mentioned case of Krishan Lal Kalra Supra paras 14 to 19 clearly make out that in the absence of pleadings, the complainant was doing share business for 'self-employment', the dispute becomes commercial and is excluded. Reliance has been placed on another decision of the National Commission in vijay Kr. Vs. Indu Singh Vol. II (2012) CPJ 181.
We have gone through the complaint of the present case. The pleadings of share dealing being for self-employment are conspicuously missing. Hence the application is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
File be consigned to record room.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) (S.C. Jain) Member