VANDANA MALHOTRA Vs. GLOBAL INVESTMENTS & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 717 & 1448 of 2004 M/s. Consortium Securities Ltd. Vs. Vandana Malahotra & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Petitioner in order to purchase 200 shares @ Rs.108/- per share including commission of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. orally availed the services of the opposite party No. 2/Respondent No. 2 through its sub Broker opposite party No.1/Respondent No.1 in the month of December, 1998. She made the payment of Rs.22,240/- through cheque No.518688 dated 7.9.1998 to the opposite party No. 1 sub agent of the opposite party No. 2, as the opposite party No. 2 is a member of National Stock Exchange. This amount included Rs.21,600/- as price of the shares @ Rs.108/- per share and Rs.640/- as commission and service charges charged by the opposite parties. The said cheque was encashed by the Bankers of the complainant in favour of the opposite parties. The opposite parties thereafter failed to make the delivery of the shares to the complainant. The complainant thereafter wrote letters dated 10.10.1998, 13.11.1998, 20.2.1999, 13.8.1999 and 16.3.2000 to the opposite parties requesting them to deliver the share, dividend as well as other benefits accrued in respect of the said shares. The opposite parties failed to deliver the shares to the complainant. A legal notice dated 12.9.2000 was also issued to them but without any result. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No.1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands and had tried to mislead by distorting real facts. The opposite party No. 1 was working as a partnership firm in the name and style as U&R Engineers and Consultants having its office at SCF No. 38 First Floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh for which Shri Rajneesh Malhotra-husband of the complainant was other partner as per partnership-deed dated 11.8.1998 as the said partnership was doing the business of Marketing Industrial Goods etc. The partners of the said firm used to receive and issue cheque in usual course of business with the understanding that profit and loss would be settled after each and every business. In the month of August, the said firm got the order from PTL Mohali for Rs.1,01,000/- and a cheque amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to the manufacturer and the rest was the profits besides other expenses. It was further stated that the alleged cheque stated to be given for purchase of shares was in fact cheque of profit and other expenses which had been incurred by it and was got issued by Shir Rajneesh Malhotra, the other partner on the pretext that he wanted to avail tax benefit to which it had agreed to do so. The other pleas of limitation and want of jurisdiction of the District forum to try the complaint were also raised. On merits it was pleaded that there is no general characteristics for the purchase and sale of the shares to be done orally as alleged in the complaint, rather, a contract note is required to be signed by the purchaser and seller in order to enter into the transaction for purchase and sale of shares of Reliance Industries during that period. It was specifically denied that the complainant had ever approached it for the purchase of shares and for that reason it had no liability to deliver any shares to the complainant. Receipt of consideration amount and service charges were also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that it had no dealing with the complainant and had not received any amount from the complainant for providing any service to her. It was further stated that it was not responsible for any act and in fact the opposite party No. 1 is not its broker, sub broker, agent or sub agent. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and as such the complaint deserves to be rejected. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally to deliver 200 shares of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal filed by OP No. 2 was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and complaint was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.