Bangalore Exchange V/S K.A. Venkata Narayana - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/1461/08

K.A. Venkata Narayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bangalore Exchange - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1461/08

K.A. Venkata Narayana						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Bangalore Exchange Motilal Oswal Securties						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 18th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1461/2008 COMPLAINANT K.A. Venkata Nayaka, Son of Ashwathnarayana, Residing at No. 4, 3rd Main, Kanakanapalya, Behind SNR Hospital, Bangarpet Road, Kolar. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager, Bangalore Exchange, K.G. Road, Bangalore. (Deleted) 2. Motilal Oswal Securities, Sri. Sanjay Kumar Choubey, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, V.V. Extension, Near Sri. Kanteshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Hoskote 562 114. Advocate (Rajiv Kumar Jha) 3. Motilal Oswal Securities Limited, Member of BSE, NSE, NCDEX and MCX, Corporate Office : Hoechst House, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. 4. Branch Office at No. 8/1, 2nd Floor, Andree Road, Andree Capital, Shanthinagar, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate for OP.3 & 4 (Chandrashekar. C) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of OP.2 with regard to the purchase and sale of the share, debentures. OP.2 having accepted his membership allotted account No. 008. To facilitate the said transaction he had opened the savings bank account at S.B.I Kolar and authorized OP.2 to draw the amount and disburse it. With respect to purchase and sale of the shares OP has drawn more than Rs.4,50,000/-. But did not purchase the shares at a peak time and sold the shares when the market was down. He has also not given the satisfactory accounts and statement to the complainant as agreed upon. With all that OP.2 directed him to invest another Rs.1,00,000/-. He paid the same, but still OP did not give proper service as contemplated. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant demanded OP.2 to refund whatever the amount that he has paid, it went in vain. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. During the course of the trial complainant added OP.3 and 4 and got deleted OP.1 and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.2, 3 and 4 filed their version. The defence set out by the OPs is almost same and identical. It is contended by the OP that complainant entered into tripartite agreement with OP.2 on 29.08.2007 and also executed irrevocable power of attorney authorizing it to purchase, sale, transfer the shares, debentures, etc. With all bonafides OP acted strictly in sense of the said agreement. The investments were made by the complainant himself and he has taken keen interest in purchase of the shares and sale. As the complainant involved in profitable business, the transaction is a commercial in nature, hence he cannot claim as a Consumer. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Complainant is fully aware of the risk involved in trading in the stock market. On several occasions complainant got the profit more than expectation and drawn the said amount. So called Rs.1,00,000/- is paid by the complainant to OP towards the amount in due, as the earlier payment made through cheque was dishonored. So the contention of the complainant that he reinvested Rs.1,00,000/- in the share business is false. The complainant approached this Forum fearing that the earlier cheque which he gave was bounced and OP may initiate the appropriate action under N.I. Act. To save his skin out of sin filed this false complaint. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of OP.2 with regard to share business and transactions. In the complaint nowhere it is mentioned that he entered into a tripartite agreement on 29.08.2007 and so also with respect to the execution of irrevocable power of attorney in favour of OP.2 authorizing it to purchase, sale, transfer the shares, debentures, etc. So there is a suppression of material fact. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be very much fair and honest. It is further contended by the complainant that earlier he has invested Rs.4,50,000/- authorizing the OP.2 to draw the said amount for the said share business and later on he again invested Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the complainant OP failed to perform its activities as promised and sold the shares when the market is low and failed to get the required profit. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. The allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless, they are vague and ambiguous. It is specifically contended by the OP that the investment in securities involves purchase and sale of securities of various amounts on various occasions and then they will be sold for higher price to get more profit. We find there is some substance in the contention of the OP that it is a speculative profitable business which can be termed as a commercial in nature. Anyhow complainant when fully aware of the risk involved in the trading in the stock market, it is for him to think twice whether to invest or not to invest. When once he has given irrevocable power of attorney and entered into an agreement he is bound by the terms and conditions of the said documents. 8. The other documents produced by the OP goes to show that complainant on several occasions got profits, that too between the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. When that is so, the allegations of the complainant that OP failed to perform its activities and did not take care to sell the said shares at higher rates appears to be baseless. It is contended by the OP that in order to make payment of the amount in due to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- complainant issued a cheque on 24.01.2008 and it was bounced. The so called Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been paid by the complainant is towards payment in due. The bouncing of the said cheque is not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find the force in the defence of the OP that complainant under the fear of facing criminal prosecution with regard to bouncing of the cheque had filed this complaint. That possibility cannot be ruled out. 9. When we take notice of tripartite agreement, complainant is solely responsible for his investment decisions and transactions. Downfall in the value of the shares during the period which complainant had invested was universal one and that cannot be said as a mistake on the part of the OP. Complainant knowing the risk in entering into the said share business invested his money. If some loss occurred he has to thank himself. It is a speculative business one cannot expect when the market will be down or when it will reach the peak. Bearing all these concepts in mind, we find the complaint allegations are baseless and it is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 18th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1461/2008 COMPLAINANT K.A. Venkata Nayaka, Son of Ashwathnarayana, Residing at No. 4, 3rd Main, Kanakanapalya, Behind SNR Hospital, Bangarpet Road, Kolar. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager, Bangalore Exchange, K.G. Road, Bangalore. (Deleted) 2. Motilal Oswal Securities, Sri. Sanjay Kumar Choubey, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, V.V. Extension, Near Sri. Kanteshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Hoskote 562 114. Advocate (Rajiv Kumar Jha) 3. Motilal Oswal Securities Limited, Member of BSE, NSE, NCDEX and MCX, Corporate Office : Hoechst House, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. 4. Branch Office at No. 8/1, 2nd Floor, Andree Road, Andree Capital, Shanthinagar, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate for OP.3 & 4 (Chandrashekar. C) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of OP.2 with regard to the purchase and sale of the share, debentures. OP.2 having accepted his membership allotted account No. 008. To facilitate the said transaction he had opened the savings bank account at S.B.I Kolar and authorized OP.2 to draw the amount and disburse it. With respect to purchase and sale of the shares OP has drawn more than Rs.4,50,000/-. But did not purchase the shares at a peak time and sold the shares when the market was down. He has also not given the satisfactory accounts and statement to the complainant as agreed upon. With all that OP.2 directed him to invest another Rs.1,00,000/-. He paid the same, but still OP did not give proper service as contemplated. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant demanded OP.2 to refund whatever the amount that he has paid, it went in vain. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. During the course of the trial complainant added OP.3 and 4 and got deleted OP.1 and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.2, 3 and 4 filed their version. The defence set out by the OPs is almost same and identical. It is contended by the OP that complainant entered into tripartite agreement with OP.2 on 29.08.2007 and also executed irrevocable power of attorney authorizing it to purchase, sale, transfer the shares, debentures, etc. With all bonafides OP acted strictly in sense of the said agreement. The investments were made by the complainant himself and he has taken keen interest in purchase of the shares and sale. As the complainant involved in profitable business, the transaction is a commercial in nature, hence he cannot claim as a Consumer. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Complainant is fully aware of the risk involved in trading in the stock market. On several occasions complainant got the profit more than expectation and drawn the said amount. So called Rs.1,00,000/- is paid by the complainant to OP towards the amount in due, as the earlier payment made through cheque was dishonored. So the contention of the complainant that he reinvested Rs.1,00,000/- in the share business is false. The complainant approached this Forum fearing that the earlier cheque which he gave was bounced and OP may initiate the appropriate action under N.I. Act. To save his skin out of sin filed this false complaint. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of OP.2 with regard to share business and transactions. In the complaint nowhere it is mentioned that he entered into a tripartite agreement on 29.08.2007 and so also with respect to the execution of irrevocable power of attorney in favour of OP.2 authorizing it to purchase, sale, transfer the shares, debentures, etc. So there is a suppression of material fact. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be very much fair and honest. It is further contended by the complainant that earlier he has invested Rs.4,50,000/- authorizing the OP.2 to draw the said amount for the said share business and later on he again invested Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the complainant OP failed to perform its activities as promised and sold the shares when the market is low and failed to get the required profit. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. The allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless, they are vague and ambiguous. It is specifically contended by the OP that the investment in securities involves purchase and sale of securities of various amounts on various occasions and then they will be sold for higher price to get more profit. We find there is some substance in the contention of the OP that it is a speculative profitable business which can be termed as a commercial in nature. Anyhow complainant when fully aware of the risk involved in the trading in the stock market, it is for him to think twice whether to invest or not to invest. When once he has given irrevocable power of attorney and entered into an agreement he is bound by the terms and conditions of the said documents. 8. The other documents produced by the OP goes to show that complainant on several occasions got profits, that too between the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. When that is so, the allegations of the complainant that OP failed to perform its activities and did not take care to sell the said shares at higher rates appears to be baseless. It is contended by the OP that in order to make payment of the amount in due to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- complainant issued a cheque on 24.01.2008 and it was bounced. The so called Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been paid by the complainant is towards payment in due. The bouncing of the said cheque is not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find the force in the defence of the OP that complainant under the fear of facing criminal prosecution with regard to bouncing of the cheque had filed this complaint. That possibility cannot be ruled out. 9. When we take notice of tripartite agreement, complainant is solely responsible for his investment decisions and transactions. Downfall in the value of the shares during the period which complainant had invested was universal one and that cannot be said as a mistake on the part of the OP. Complainant knowing the risk in entering into the said share business invested his money. If some loss occurred he has to thank himself. It is a speculative business one cannot expect when the market will be down or when it will reach the peak. Bearing all these concepts in mind, we find the complaint allegations are baseless and it is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.