SOM NATH JAIN Vs. R C GOENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally the complainant had filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory of Chandigarh alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and charging more than the actual price in the purchase of shares by the Opposite Party, a share & stock broker, on behalf of the complainant.

(2.) According to the complainant, the opposite party had undertaken to purchase shares on his behalf and on behalf of his nine family members (who are complainants in Petition Nos.19 to 27) at the commission specified for shares of certain companies and undertook to submit accounts showing the purchases made, actual purchase price and the sale price of shares and his commission there for. The complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 7 lacs to the opposite party through two drafts for purchasing the shares in his name and in the names of his nine family members. The opposite party did not submit genuine documents regarding the purchase and sale of shares on behalf of the complainant and his family members. According to the complainant, after a visit to Bombay, he discovered that the opposite party respondent has made a fraudulent deal and an unfair trade practice in that he had collected the charge on account of "Badla Transaction" without furnishing the correct statement of account of the sales and purchase of the shares. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 8,21,050/-, refund of Rs. 70,000/- paid as advance and interest of 24% interest on the above amounts and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the strain and expenses of going to Bombay in connection with the deals for purchase and sale of shares made by the opposite party ostensibly on his behalf & on behalf of his family members.

(3.) The opposite party had approached this Commission for transfer of these complaints from the State Commission to the National Commission on the ground of monetary jurisdiction inasmuch as the claim of the complaint before the State Commission was in excess of Rs. 10 lacs. According to the respondent's calcula tions the complainant's claim would be over Rs. 13.71 lacs. We in our order of 7th December, 1992 had observed that "From a mere reading of the complaint petition, it becomes manifest that the real valuation of the main complaint petition will exceed Rs. 10 lacs with the result that the State Commission is not the appropriate forum before which the complaint can be instituted". Hence all the complaints were withdrawn from the State Commission and were treated as Original Complaints on the file of this Commission.