KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 34/2002 JUDGMENT DATED.5.1.2008 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Geojit Securities Limited, Unity Buildings, Opposite M.D.Commercial Centre, K.K.Road, : APPELLANT Kottayam. (By Adv. M/s.Peter & Karunakar) Vs. Cyriac Thomas, Parakattil House, Cheruvandoor, Ettumanoor, : RESPONDENT Kottayam. (By Adv.John Cheriyan) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite party has come up in this appeal against the order dated:15..11..2001 of the CDRF, Kottayam wherein and whereby the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6469.19 and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. 2. The main grievances voiced in the complaint are that he has been engaged in trading of shares and securities with the opposite party through their Kottyam branch. The complainant has purchased 50 shares of Max India Limited on 19..1..2000 through the opposite party and at the same time the opposite party agreed to sell 25 shares. On 20..1..2000 the opposite party sold 25 shares for a sum of Rs.11,124.56. Thereafter the complainant himself has sold 50 numbers of shares on 10..2..2000 with the belief that the opposite party has not sold that 25 shares on 20..1..2000. However as the complainant was having only 25 shares with him at the time of sale on 10..2..2000 and as the opposite party has not informed him of the sale of 25 shares in time, the complainant had to purchase 25 shares in auction at a higher price thereby he had suffered a loss of Rs.6469.19. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and in the complaint filed before the Forum he prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.11,569/- together with 12% interest along with cost of the petition. 3. The opposite party in its version submitted that the complainant had purchased 50 Nos of shares on 19..1..2000 and also directed the opposite party to sell 25 shares immediately. The opposite party sold 25 shares on 20..1..2000 and the fact of sale had been communicated to the complainant. The sale proceeds was also credited to the account of the complainant. It was also contended that the complainant was very well aware that he was having only 25 shares in his account and he was doing the speculative trading on 10..2..2000 in the 28th settlement. It was also submitted by the opposite party that the complainant was unable to obtain 25 more shares on that particular day whereby he was compelled to purchase 25 more shares at a higher price to make good of short delivery of 25 shares. The opposite party pleaded that there was no deficiency on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of the petitioner as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 are marked on its side. The Regional Manager of the opposite party was examined as DW1 and documents B1 to B6 were marked. Based on the above the forum below passed the impugned order. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellant. Unfortunately we had no opportunity to hear the respondent as there was no representation. However the lower court records were available for perusal before us and were considered. 6. It is the admitted case of the complainant that he was trading through the opposite party and he has purchased 50 numbers of shares of Max India Limited on 19..1..2000 and directed the opposite parties to sell 25 shares. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that he has sold 50 number of shares on 10..2..2000. 7. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the complainant had the knowledge that he was having only 25 shares for sale on 10..2..2000 and he was indulged in speculative trading on 10..2..2000. Unfortunately he might not have been successful in obtaining 25 more shares at a low rate and in order to make good of the short delivery of 25 numbers and in order to comply with the directions of the SEBI (Guidelines and Investor Protection) Guidelines 2000, he had to procure 25 shares in auction paying a higher price. The learned counsel further argued that the respondent/complainant was in constant touch with the appellant/opposite party and he could have got a clarification as to how many shares he had on that particular day before selling the 50 numbers of shares as averred by him. We find some force in the argument of the learned counsel that the complainant ought to have checked his account position before indulging in speculative trading. If he had suffered any loss, it may be due to his own negligence as lapses and the opposite party cannot be faulted for the loss suffered by him. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had himself arranged for the purchase of 50 numbers and sale of the half of it through the opposite party and it was incumbent on him to verify whether the 25 numbers have already been sold and the sale proceeds credited to his account. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any imperfection or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in connection with the purchase and sale and the order of the lower forum can only be upturned and we do so. In the result the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated:15..11..2001 in OP:421/00 of the CDRF, Kottayam. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VL. | 
