M.C. RANA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Mandi, passed in Complaint Case No.227/2007, dated 29.9.2007. In the present case the complaint was dismissed by holding that there is no merit in the complaint since it was held that this is not a consumer dispute. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case within the narrow compass are that the opposite party who had been dealing in sale and purchase of shares under the name and style of Sidhartha Capital Investment at Mandi and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.38,921 to the opposite party on 15.1.2004 through cheque of Punjab National Bank for the purchase of shares in his name and the opposite party was also requested to transfer the share in the name of the complainant. As per allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that instead of purchasing the shares and transferring them in his favour, the opposite party had pocketed his funds. When the complainant had asked the opposite party about his funds, the latter had silenced him. The complainant had been informed that the share market had not been in full swing. The opposite party was to purchase the shares for the complainant at appropriate time. The opposite party did not purchase the shares compelling the complainant to serve him with notice dated 11.1.2007 and 17.7.2007. The opposite party had controverted the notice of the complainant. The opposite party had stated having purchased the shares of Global Trust Bank in favour of the complainant. The complainant says that the opposite party did not purchase the shares. In case, the opposite party had purchased the shares, the same were required to be transferred in favour of the complainant. Hence deficiency of service had been claimed on the part of opposite parties. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed, wherein prayer had been made for the recovery of Rs.38,921 with interest @ 18% per annum and litigation cost has also been claimed to the tune of Rs.5,000.

(3.) THIS complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party on the ground of maintainability, estoppel and non -joinder of parties and it was also stated that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of SEBI and on merit, opposite party had denied having paid a sum of Rs.38,921 by the complainant through cheque, however it has been stated that Sidhartha Capital Investment had been a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms and had been carrying business of sale and purchase of shares and opposite party had not been dealing in sale and purchase of shares in his individual/personal capacity in the firm to whom the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.38,921 through cheque had gone in liquidation and the aforesaid firm had purchased 1,000 shares of Global Trust Bank for the complainant and the complainant had been duly informed of the purchase of shares and as such the complainant has leveled false allegations of pocketing of funds against the opposite party. It was also submitted that the complainant had served two notices to the opposite party, dated 1.2.2007 and 17.7.2007 and in the first notice the complainant had claimed the purchase of 1,000 share of Global Trust Bank in his favour by the opposite party and in the second notice, dated 17.7.2007 the complainant had made false allegations of pocketing of funds against them and it was also stated that the premises of Sidhartha Capital Investment was in the building where the complainant had been working and the Global Trust Bank had run into bankruptcy and the value of the shares had come down to a very negligible amount. It was also alleged that the complainant was required to put his shares in his account so that he could be paid the value thereof and the complainant had failed to do so. As such, unredeemed shares of Global Trust Bank had been purchased by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and thousands of thousands of investors had lost funds when Global Trust Bank had turned bankrupt and cases of Parminder Kaur and Vijay Kumar have also been cited as instances who also lost their funds. Hence, it was alleged that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complaint has filed a false complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against them and complainant is not entitled to any relief.