KRISHAN KUMAR DUBEY Vs. TRUSTLINE SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant has filed this petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') challenging order dated 23.04.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh(for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No. 360 of 2011).

(2.) In brief case of the petitioner is that, on representations of Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2, petitioner opened demat account for online trading with Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 on 24.7.2010. It is stated that as per respondent no. 2, any of the transactions relating to purchase or sale of the shares were to be executed on petitioner's specific instructions. Petitioner deposited Rs.1,05,000/- in order to earn his livelihood in the form of profit by way of online trading and he instructed respondents to specifically invest in the shares of Bajaj Financial Services and other than that, no transactions shall be done relating to the sale or purchase of the shares, without his instructions. Petitioner further averred that respondents agreed to install/provide trading software in his computer for carrying out the trading but the same was not installed despite his repeated requests. Rather respondents started trading in his account of their own without his consent, thereby causing financial loss to him. Respondents did not supply the statement of accounts, despite his requests. It is alleged that respondents started demanding Rs.60,271/-being debit balance. Petitioner served legal notice dated 13.12.2010 upon the respondents but to no effect. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) Respondent No.1 in its reply, denied therein all the allegations made in the complaint. It was stated that, respondent no.2 is no more their employee and had left the job way back in December, 2010. It was further stated that, petitioner signed the member client agreement with respondent no.1 and no terms and conditions of that agreement, contains any provision which states that any of the transaction relating to purchase or sale of the shares were to be executed on specification written instructions of the petitioner. It was denied, that petitioner had instructed it to invest only in shares of Bajaj Financial Services and other than no transaction shall be done relating to sale or purchase of the shares, without his specific instructions. It is further stated, that no request for installing the software was ever received by it. The petitioner suffered losses due to his erroneous trading decision. Now with an ulterior motive to recover those losses from respondent no.1, he filed a false and frivolous complaint. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. The complaint merit dismissal.