CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY SURAKSHA SANKOOL AHMEDABAD Vs. NITIN B CHOKSHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKER AHMEDABAD STOCK EXCHANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for following reliefs essentially for complainant No.2 who would be hereinafter referred to as the complainant: "it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble State Commission may be pleased to direct the opposite party No.1 (a) to pay interest amount of Rs.14,87,000 approximately to complainant No.2 as shown in Annexure No. C. (b) to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation for the inconvenience, discomfort and agony suffered by the complainant No.2 in view of the failure of the opposite party No.1 to pay interest in time. (c) to pay Rs.10,000 as cost to complainant No.1, as cost of filing this complaint. (d) to pay Rs.5,000 as cost to complainant No.2, for filing this complaint. "

(2.) Briefly stated, the complainant's case is that he had dealings in shares as investor with opponent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, a share-broker in the year 1995-96. According to his case, his outstanding dues amounted to Rs.1,00,59,676 from the opponent which resulted in filing of complaint by the complainant against the opponent before Ahmedabad Stock Exchange who has been joined as opponent No.2, though no relief has been prayed for against the said opponent. The matter was referred to Investors' Grievance Committee of the stock exchange on 16.5.1996. The opponent was called before the said Committee and it was decided that the opponent should pay to the complainant his dues in instalments approved by the Committee. As per the decision of the Committee, the dues were totally paid, the last payment being Rs.12,39,490 received by the complainant on 1.10.1996. It was the complainant's grievance that he would be entitled to interest on his outstanding dues for the period during which they remained unpaid. The complainant has, therefore, referred to the correspondence ensued between him and the opponents and has filed the present complaint against the first opponent for recovery of the interest amount as noted in the aforesaid relief. Such complaint came to be filed on or around 29.1.1999.

(3.) While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, the opponent has asserted in his written statement Exh.6 that the complaint is not maintainable at law, that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear such a complaint, that it is barred by limitation, that the matter was referred to arbitration of Investor Grievance Committee and after the decision was rendered by the said Committee and payment was made by the opponent, complainant was not entitled to raise the dispute with regard to interest and the complaint should be dismissed with cost.