R P KAPOOR Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI R.P. Kapur, I.C.S. (Retd.) is the petitioner and M/s. Bharat Bhushan & Co., is the respondent in this revision petition which is against the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 14th February, 1996. Briefly the facts of this case are that Shri R.P. Kapur, sent a letter to the respondent, who are the brokers on February 26, 1992 enclosing 500 shares of Reliance Industries for sale at or above Rs. 185 /- per share subject to the condition that the payment should be made within one month. M/s. Bharat Bhushan & Co., sold these shares on 29.2.1992attherateof Rs. 208.42 per share and informed Shri Kapur accordingly. The contention of Shri Kapur is that these shares were sold at a lower rate and had the respondent taken due care the shares could have been sold at a higher price in the afternoon, after the presentation of the Budget. Shri Kapur, therefore, contended that there was a clear deficiency of service on the part of the respondent Brokers. The State Commission while dismissing this contention came to the conclusion that though the share prices even on that day, which incidentally was the day of Budget presentation, fluctuated, but it is difficult for any person to anticipate the price trend straightaway. In any case, the price at which the shares were sold was higher than the price indicated by the petitioner. It may also be noted that the petitioner had no where mentioned that the other conditions of payment within one month were not complied with.

(2.) IN his revision petition Shri Kapur has also contended that the respondent brokers did not actually sell the shares on 29.2.1992 as these were sent for transfer much later thereby implying that they may have earned some profit by selling the shares at price higher than what they have paid to the petitioner. To support this argument, Shri Kapur has placed reliance on a letter dated 13.8.1993 received by him from the Reliance Consultancy Service Ltd. where name and address of the witness transferor has been shown as Mahendra Singh, Bharat Bhushan & Co., H-45, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110 001. We do not find much force in this argument because the witness transferor is not the same thing as the transferree. Even presuming that the shares were kept by the broker and later sold at a higher price than paid to the petitioner, no deficiency in service can be alleged on their part because the brokers fulfilled both the conditions namely, as regards the price and payment as far as the petitioner is concerned. In the Order of the State commission it is mentioned that Shri Kapur has alleged that the respondents were guilty of offences under Sections 420, 467, 403 and 405 of I.P.C, and therefore, liable to compensate the petitioner. We would like to make it clear that we are not dealing with the offences under the provisions of I.P.C., as mentioned before. We are looking at the issues involved purely from the angle of deficiency of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On a perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, we see no merit in this revision petition, and, therefore, dismiss it. There is no order as to costs.