K P LEELA Vs. ANEJA FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this Original Petition, Kumari K.P. Leela, Advocate, has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for loss, injury, mental agony and hardship suffered due to the negligence of M/s. Aneja Finance Consultancy Services, the Opposite Party herein. Briefly the facts of the case are that she had engaged the Opposite Party as a financial consultant, for managing her shares and money etc. Her allegation is that as Portfolio Manager, M/s. Aneja Financial Consultancy Services, mismanaged her portfolio, as well as money, and did not return to her the legitimate profit as she perceived it should be. Initially, this complaint was filed before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh which was dismissed on the 10th February, 1994 on the ground that there was full and final settlement of accounts of the claims between the parties. In addition, she had also filed two complaints- C.D. Nos. 442 and 443 of 1992 before the District Forum, Hyderabad, claiming Rs. 99,000/- against the same Portfolio Manager, on the ground that she had been cheated by them. These cases had been dismissed by the District Forum by a common order. Aggrieved by these orders she filed appeal C.D.A. Nos. 674 and 773 of 1993 before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh. These appeals were also dismissed along with the other appeals Nos. C.D.A. 748 and C.D.A. 751 of 1993 which were filed by Miss K. Sugunakumari, sister of kumari K.P. Leela and by Aneja Financial Consultancy Services respectively. However, Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President, A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wrote to us that another case filed by her in C.D. No. 14/94 may be transferred from the State Commission, as the Complainant herein, in a loud voice, interrupted the proceedings and alleged that she would not get justice from the State Commission.

(2.) In the present complaint before us, her main plea is that the Opposite Party had promised that she will become a millionaire within three to six months, if she engages them as her Portfolio Managers. But, the Opposite Party instead of giving her due share which she feels should have been there during the peak season of 1990, offered a meager sum and thus has squeezed her life style without observing any ethics or morals. The Complainant had become an annual member of the share trading facilities of the Opposite Party and paid a sum of Rs. 1,700/- for investment on 28.6.1990. From that day onwards up to 24.7.1991 various transactions of purchase and sale of shares of various companies were effected on behalf of the Complainant about which a statement used to be sent to her. Her complaint in brief is that the statements sent to her were not fully correct and certain facts were kept away from her knowledge and information.

(3.) We heard the complainant who argued her case in person and also the arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, Shri S.L. Aneja. After going through the records of the case carefully, we find that this complaint is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the issues arising for adjudication between the Complainant and the Opposite Party are of a complicated nature where the allegations and counter allegations of misrepresentation and bouncing of cheques etc. have been made. Moreover, we find that the complaint before the State Commission by the Complainant was dismissed on the ground that there was full and final settlement of accounts of all the claims between the parties. We find it difficult to accept the plea of the complainant that the full-and final settlement of accounts was agreed to by her under duress, as we do not expect an educated and socially aware person who happens to be an advocate as well, acting against her own interests under duress. In view of these facts we dismiss this complaint petition without any order as to costs. This order disposes of the First Appeal No. 304 of 1994 also. Complaint petition dismissed.