PRITHVIRAJ JAYACHAND OSWAL Vs. HEM SECURITIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint No.361/2002 has been dismissed by the judgment delivered by the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur on 25/1/2007.

(2.) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under :

(3.) The complainant/appellant had filed consumer complaint against Hem Securities Limited and Chief Executive Officer, Stock Exchange Mumbai. According to the complainant he is a Proprietor of Prashatosh Capitalise Services and he is investor. O.P.No.1 and himself were having agreement of member client. O.P.No.1 is a member of Mumbai Stock Exchange. He is broker. According to the complainant he had sold 1000 shares of F.C.L. Techno Company and 300 shares of L & T company through O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.2. However, the O.P.No.2 did not get delivery of those shares through O.P.No.1 and therefore the O.P.No.2 Bombay Stock Exchange purchased them by public auction through open market. O.P.No.2 took Rs.3,280/- and Rs.1,640/- as service charges. This amount was debited in the account of complainant by O.P.No.1. According to the complainant the O.P.No.2 illegally recovered from him Rs.19,107.15/- and only price of the shares purchased should have been debited from the account of complainant maintained with O.P.No.1. But O.P.No.2 enriched itself by resorting to unfair trade practice and as such it is guilty of deficiency in service. So, he is entitled to get amount of Rs.19107.15/- from O.P.No.2. He also pleaded that O.P.No.1 had agreed to give VSAT instrument but after it was commissioned, on their own accord, the O.P.No.1 stopped the said facility and for five months period O.P.No.1 charged him non activation charges of Rs.3,000/- totaling to Rs.15,000/- and debited it from his account. This action on the part of O.P.No.1 was per se illegal, unjust and bad in law. The O.P.No.1 was intending to remove VSAT instrument from the premises of complainant and they were to levy shifting charges of Rs.36,000/- on the complainant. He objected for the same and therefore shifting charges should not have been levied by O.P.No.1. Complainant pleaded that because of deficiency in service under various heads he was entitled to get various reliefs which he listed in the prayer clause in para 15 of the complaint.