BALVANTKUMAR GYANCHAND MITTAL Vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the original complainant Balwant Kumar Gyanchand Mittal against the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Case No.1017 of 2010 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party Networh Stock Broking Ltd., Ahmedabad and set aside the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad in Consumer Complaint Case No.230/2007 and also dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner who is a senior citizen of 68 years of age and was leading a retired life after a successful business career in his young age, was having a trading account with the respondent/opposite party and doing business of purchasing and selling shares in the "Future & Option" segment and also in cash (Delivery Basis Segment) in F & O segment. He used to give instructions to the respondent in respect of the shares which he wanted to purchase or sell. It is the grievance of the complainant/petitioner that without informing the complainant, the OP sold certain shares of the complainant without any legal rights to do so. As per the allegation, during the period in question, the share prices were going up and if the OP had not sold the shares of the complainant without informing him, the complainant might have earned Rs.1 lakh. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP in this regard, the complainant filed his consumer complaint before the Additional City Forum, Ahmedabad. The OP remained absent and the matter was decided by the City Forum ex parte based on the submissions of the petitioner/complainant and the documents filed by him in support of his contentions in terms of the following directions:-

(3.) After the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant/petitioner filed an execution application bearing No.15 of 2010 before the City Forum. It is seen from the copy of the memorandum of appeal placed on file that the OP for the first time came to know about the order against it when it received the notice from the City Forum on or around 10.3.2010 for its appearance in the execution matter on 30.3.2010. Thereafter, aggrieved of the order dated 25.2.2008, the OP filed its appeal before the State Commission against the original order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the City Forum, Ahmedabad. The State Commission by its impugned order allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the City Forum and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been preferred before this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.