RANJAN GHOSH Vs. MANISHA BHOWMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.1.1998 passed by the Forum directing opposite party No.3 to pay the price of shares amounting to Rs.5,450/- + brokerage of Rs.250/- charged from the complainant + compensation to the tune of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The appellant was the commission agent of respondent Nos.2 and 3 during the year 95-96. In April, 1995 the complainant an Advocate of High Court at Calcutta placed an order to him for purchase of 500 numbers of Master gain-92 of U. T. I, and 100 numbers of Nalco shares. The complainant paid the full consideration money by Account Payee Cheque and paid him Rs.200/- in cash as brokerage and other charges. As against the said payment the present appellant made payment to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Upon receipt of the amount, respondent Nos.2 and 3 delivered 500 equity shares of Master gain-92 to the complainant. The complainant sent those shares for transfer and registration in her favour. Later on it was learnt that the UTI had issued duplicate certificates in lieu of the original ones as those had been reported to be misplaced. On receipt of this information the complainant entered into correspondence, but to no effect. Later on she filed the present complaint and the Forum allowed it with a direction to opposite party No.3, the broken only to pay the price of shares. Consequently, the opposite party No.3 has filed this appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he had acted as a sub-broker only. He remitted the money to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as the price of shares. He submits further that the complainant having not received the shares because of some difficulties should have claimed compensation from opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and not from him, inasmuch as he has only acted as a sub-broker in the transaction. It is also submitted that he has not retained the money, but passed it on to opposite party Nos.2 and 3. It appears that the Forum made opposite party No.3 alone responsible for this failure in the transaction. The other opposite parties did not appear. In cur considered opinion, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are equally responsible for the failure of the transaction and the Forum ought to have passed award against them as well. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order needs slight modification. The order of the Forum is confirmed subject to the modification that respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as the present appellant should be directed to pay the price of shares. In other words, the award would be passed against opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and all of them are jointly and severally liable to make payment of all the amounts as ordered by the Forum. With this modification, the appeal be disposed of.