S V SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. RAMPAL ATTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum in C. D. No.717/92, this appeal is preferred by the complainant.

(2.) His case is that he is an investor and the Opposite Party a share broker. The complainant used to purchase and sell the shares of various companies through the Opposite Party and he used to give written instructions to the Opposite Party for that purpose. On 7.4.1992 on his instructions, the Opposite Party purchased 50 shares of Reliance Industries at the rate of Rs.345-20 Ps per share. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.16,360/- and was due in a sum of Rs.900/-to the Opposite Party. When the complainant offered to pay the balance of Rs.900/- and requested O. P. to deliver 50 shares, he was informed by the Opposite Party that on 25.3.1992 the complainant had placed an order with him for purchase of 100 shares of Reliance Industries for which the complainant is due Rs.39590/-. Unless that amount was paid, the opposite party refused to deliver the aforesaid shares. It is the case of the complainant that he had not placed any order with the Opposite Party on 25.3.1992 for purchase of 100 shares and the Opposite Party invented this with a view to recoup heavy losses suffered by him due to slump in the stock market. The complainant therefore claimed a sum of Rs.28,000/- towards loss suffered by him as he had lost an opportunity to apply shares and debentures on preferential basis. He also claimed a sum of Rs.7640/- on a account of pain, suffering, mental tension and visits to the opposite party and also sought for delivery of 50 shares from the Opposite Party by accepting Rs.900/- or else refund Rs.16,360/- with interest at 24% p. a. from 23.4.92.

(3.) In his version, the Opposite Party submitted that the complainant is not an inves- tor and he used to pay or receive only the difference between the rate of purchase and sale. He used to place orders orally over telephone. On 25.3.1992 the complainant placed an order for 100 shares of Reliance Industries and the Opposite Party purchased the same as instructed by the complainant. It is his case that payment of Rs.16,360/- by the complainant was not towards the costs of 50 shares purchased by him, but was merely credited to the account of the complainant. Because of the slump in the share market the complainant is disowning the said transaction. When a demand was made by the Opposite Party by letter dated 2.6.1992 asking the complainant to pay the balance of Rs.40,490/- as counter blast the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 6.6.1992 disowned the purchase of 100 shares. It is no doubt, the complainant placed an order for purchase of 50 shares, but delivery of 50 shares cannot be given without payment of the balance of amount with interest due to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has a lien on the shares until the complainant pays all the amount due to the Opposite Party. As and when the complainant pays the balance of amount with interest at 21% p. a. the Opposite Party is prepared to deliver 150 shares of Reliance Industries to the complainant.