POONAM ASTHANA Vs. R S BAHADUR AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Poonam Asthana, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, had been dealing with M/s. R. S. Bahadur and Co. HUF share and debenture brokers, who, in turn, had been dealing with opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 for the purchase and sale of shares and debentures on behalf of opposite party No.1. According to the complainant an order for the purchase of 500 shares of Gujarat Lease and Finance Ltd. was carried out by opposite party 1 and the purchase confirmed by confirmation letter of the same date @ Rs.145.10 per share inclusive of 2% brokerage. The complainant purchased another lot of 1500 shares of the said company from opposite party 1 on 1.2.94 @ Rs.168.75 including brokerage. It was also confirmed. Further according to the complainant, on 1.3.94, the complainant purchased 1000 shares of Punjab Wireless and Systems Ltd. (Punwire) which was confirmed on the same day @ Rs.242.75 including brokerage. It has further been averred that on 5.3.94 opposite party 1 delivered 700 shares of Gujarat Lease and Finance Ltd. purchased @ Rs.168.75 worth Rs.1,18,125/-.

(2.) According to the complainant advance payment of Rs.61,240/- was made by various cheques during the period 27.1.94 to 11.2.94. Further a sum of Rs.73,660/- was lying with opposite party 1 towards sale proceeds of various shares as per details given in para 9 of the complaint. On 5.3.94 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.78,000/- by cheque to opposite party 1 as per details mentioned in para 13 of the complaint.

(3.) On 12.3.94 opposite party No.1 met the complainant and informed him that cheques worth Rs.58,000/- issued by the complainant had been dishonoured. On the same day the complainant got issued and paid a pay order in favour of Mr. Samir Bahadur, Karta of opposite party 1 holding back a sum of Rs.10,000 /- as the dishonoured cheque had not yet been returned. A receipt for the payment of pay order was obtained and is Annexure-7. Opposite party No.1, however, sent a notice dated 23.3.94 through its Advocate threatening legal actions u/section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and again demanded the payment of Rs.58,000 /- pertaining to the dishonoured cheque, conveniently suppressing the fact that pay order for Rs.48,000/- had already been given. On the same day opposite party No.1 sent a false telegram demanding a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- on account of price of the shares of Gujarat Lease and Finance Ltd. and that the same were ready for delivery. The complainant contacted him but the opposite party No.1 was unable to show either that the balance shares of Gujarat Lease were available for delivery or how the figure of Rs.1,60,000/-had been worked out. Keeping in view the amount already advanced or was due from opposite party 1. On 7.4.94 opposite party 1 visited the residence of the complainant offered to return dishonoured cheques worth Rs.58,000/- against balance payment of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, a further payorder of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to opposite party 1. Photo-copy of the pay order is Annexure 10. The opposite party also wanted the complainant to sign certain books carried by it to the effect that there was no balance left with opposite party which might be due to the complainant. The complainant declined to sign the books as a sum of Rs.94,775/- was lying due to the complainant as the balance amount. Opposite party 1 left threatening the complainant with dire consequences and lodged a false report with Police Station Greater Kailash. It was in the Police Station that opposite party accepted the pay order of Rs.10,000/- and made a statement that he did not want any action to be taken on his complaint. Copy of the receipt is Annexure 11. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had been rendering service of purchase and sale of shares to the complainant on payment of brokerage and the -complainant was, therefore, a consumer and a sum of Rs.94,775 /- which was due to the complainant from opposite party 1 was payable to him. He claimed the amount along with 24% interest Since Feb. , 94 till the date of payment. The further relief claimed is that opposite party 1 was liable to deliver 1300 shares of Gujarat Lease and Finance Ltd. as the balance shares from out of those mentioned in the earlier part of this order. The complainant also seeks direction that opposite party 1 was liable to deliver 1000 shares of Punwire at the rate already agreed to between the parties. Further case of the complainant is that there were some discrepancies in the rates charged by the opposite party 1 from the complainant and the rates at which transactions actually took place in the Stock Exchange with regard to the various shares referred to in the complaint and that the complainant was entitled to pay/adjust the amount at which various transactions actually took place as per the entries made in the Chopri.