BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1101/2005 against C.D.No.28/2002 , District Forum, Nalgonda .
Between:
Sri G.Econarayana, S/o.Ramalingaiah,
Age : 48 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.H.No.6-2-817, Srinagar Colony,
Nalgonda. .... Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1.Gayatri Capital Limited Regd. Office:1-7-1,
1st Floor, T.S.R.Complex, S.P.Road,
Secunderabad-500 003.
Rep. by its authorised Signatory
Mr.K.P.Ravindranath.
2. Gayatri Capital Limited, Arjun Complex,
Opp.:Police Headquarters, Nalgonda,.
Rep. by its Manager Sri M.M.Gopichand
This office presently situated at Suryalok
Complex , Hyderabad road, Nalgonda.
3..Meenaiah, Lecturer, R/o.Plot No.33,
Reghavendra colony, Nalgonda.
4. Smt. A.Parvathi, W/o.Meenaiah, Age 42 years,
Occ:Partner of Shiridi Sai Share Consultancy,
Nalgonda, R/o.Plot no.33, Raghavendra Colony,
Nalgonda.
5.. A.Shoban Babu, S/o.Naraiah, Age:28 years,
Occ:Partner of Shiridi Sai Share Consultancy,
Nalgonda , R/o.Uppala Yellareddy Complex,
H.No.6-2-33/8/4, Upstairs of Srinidi Finance,
Hyderabad Road , Nalgonda.
6. Kandala Sathi Reddy S/o.Malla Reddy,
Age :41 years, Occ:Partner of the Shiridi Sai Share
Consultancy, R/o.H.no.10-54, Nakrekal.
7. Kandala Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,
Age : 34 years, Occ:Partner of Shiridi Sai Share
Consultancy, Nalgonda R/o.H.No.10-55,
Nakrekal.
8. Kairamkonda Rajesh, S/o. Satyanarayana,
Age:31 years, Occ:Employee in the Gayatri Capital
Limited Nalgonda R/o.Market road, Nakrekal.
9.The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.,
5, Bazullaih road, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017.
(Appeal against R9 is not pressed)
10. Securities and Exchange Board of India,
Southern Regional Office, 3rd floor, ‘D’ Monte
Building , No.32, ‘D’ Monte Colony, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet,
Chennai -18.
11. Gayatri Capital Limited, Regd. Office:1-7-1,
1st floor, T.S.R. Complex, S.P.Road,
Secunderabad -500 003, rep. by its
Managing Director T.V.Sandeep Kumar Reddy. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the appellants : M/s.V.Gowrisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.D.Krishna Murthy:R1, R2, R6, R7 & R11
M/s.M.Hari Babu:R3 to R5
CORAM:HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order: (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in C.D.No.28/2002 dt.17.3.2004 .
Appellant herein is the complainant before District Forum. He filed complaint to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.2,24,305.70 and Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.4.2000 and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of the petition.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant sold the shares of Leading Edge Systems Ltd. to the opp.party no.2 as per the summary Accounting Ledger page no. 1 ,dt.29.3.2000 and the opp.party no.2 paid Rs.2 lakhs and retained Rs.40,000/- towards margin money . The opp.party no.2 issued a cheque bearing no.025034 under payment receipt no.358 dt.12.4.2000 with a signature of opp.party no.8 on 18.4.2000 for Rs.2.24,305-70 ps. towards the final payment of the said transaction. The complainant submitted the said cheqe for collection which was returned unpaid for want of funds. A criminal case is pending under Section 138 of N.I.Act for dishonour of cheque against the opp.parties .1 to 8 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nalgonda under CC.No.6/01.. Immediately after dishonour of cheque the complainant lodged a complaint before opp.party no.9. Neither the opp.party no.9 nor opp.party no.1 arranged amount under dishonoured cheque . Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties , complainant approached District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.2,24,305.70 and Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.4.2000 and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards costs of the petition.
The opp.parties denied the alleged transaction and stated that they have nothing to do with the alleged transaction of sale of shares . They have taken a plea that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and that it is barred by limitation . The opp.parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Exs.A1 and A2 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant . Exs.B1 and B2 documents are marked on behalf of the opp.parties . The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- to each of the opp.party i.e. opp.parties 1 to 4, 6,7 and 11.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Forum ,complainant preferred this appeal .
The point for determination arises in this appeal is whether the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute, if so to what relief he is entitled?
There is no dispute with regard to the complainant has sold the shares of Leading Edge Systems Ltd. to the opp.party no.2 on 29.3.2000 . The opp.party no.2 paid Rs.2 lakhs and retained Rs.40,000/- towards margin money. The opp.party no.2 issued a cheque bearing no.025034 under payment receipt no.358 dt.12.4.2000 with the signature of opp.party no.8 on 18.4.2000 for Rs.2.24,305-70 towards the final payment of the said transaction. The complainant has submitted the said cheque before the bank which was returned for want of funds. The appellant/complainant contended that the dispute raised by him is a consumer dispute u/s.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and he further submits that he hired services of the opp.party for consideration , opp.parties 1 to 8 and 10 are the share brokers registered with the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., opp.party no.9 and charge consideration for every transaction of sale and purchase of the shares for and by their customers and they are collecting handling charges ranging from 1% to 5% of the sale proceeds of the sale of shares hence the dispute is a consumer dispute. Submission made by the appellant is concerned there is no dispute with regard to cheque was bounced and a criminal complaint is filed which is pending before JFCM, Nalgonda. The opp.parties paid part of the value of the shares and for remaining part of the value of the shares issued a cheque which was bounced . The dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute .The appellant submits that the District Forum has not marked the documents filed by him and also not passed any orders in I.A.Nos.171/2001 to 174/2001 and kept them pending and disposed of the main complaint which were filed to summon the documents from the criminal court, to cross examine the opp.parties , to call for records from the bank and to receive certain documents . The submission made by the appellant is concerned we have gone through I.A.no.171/2001 . In that petition the appellant has sought for permission of the Forum to cross examine the opp.party no.6 . No order was passed by the District Forum in the said petition. The other I.A.Nos.172 to 174/2001 are filed to summon all the documents from the criminal court and bank . The said IA.s are also pending and no orders are passed . The cross examination of opp.parties is necessary for deciding the complaint. On the other hand complainant sought for summoning of the documents in I.A.No.172/2001 to 174/2001. The complainant can obtain certified copies of the documents . There is no necessity for summoning of the documents. There is no doubt the appellant was not given opportunity to file the documents before the District Forum . Apart from this all the documents filed by the complainant are not marked by the District Forum and even without disposal of I.A.No.171/2001 to 174 /2001 , the complaint was disposed . The appellant has taken plea that he has intended to file some more documents which are not summoned by the District Forum . In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the District Forum passed order dismissing the complaint without properly appreciating the documentary evidence .
In the result appeal is allowed in part. Order of the District Forum is set aside . The matter is remanded to the District Forum with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry and give opportunity to both parties and dispose of the case expeditiously within 3 months of receipt of records. All the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 20.6.2008 . No fresh notices of date of hearing will be issued. . Parties shall bear their own costs . .
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
4.6.2008
Pm*
