This appeal has been filed by the appellant Ritu Uppal against the order dated 27.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Consumer Complaint No.01/93. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a consumer complaint alleging that the appellant/complainant had a trading account with opposite party Investsmart India Ltd. (now HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. and account was not settled by the opposite party. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.10.2015 allowed the complaint as under:- “The complaint is partly allowed. The Opponent shall pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.67,110/- together with interest thereon @12% p.a. with effect from 06th March, 2001 within a period of two months from the date of this order and failing which, the amount shall carry additional penal interest @3% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. The Opponent shall bear its own costs and shall pay to the complainant, costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-. The Opponent is at liberty to deduct an amount of Rs.2,03,797.50ps from the due amount towards the shares wrongfully purchased in the name of the complainant.” 3. In the present appeal order of the State Commission has been challenged to the extent that the opposite party has been given the liberty to deduct Rs.2,03,797.50ps. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the State Commission has taken this figure from the statement of value of shares as on 5th Mar 2001 wrongly delivered to the complainant, which reads as under:- Name of the Share | Quantity | Closing rates as on 5th Mar 01 at BSE | Total value | L & T Limited | 200 | 269.35 | 53870 | Sail | 2000 | 7.5 | 15000 | Indo Gulf Corp. Ltd. | 1500 | 39.95 | 59925 | MTNL | 200 | 150.85 | 30170 | Sterlite Industries Ltd. | 50 | 586.65 | 29332.5 | Wockhardt Scs Life | 200 | 23 | 4600 | Neuland Labs | 200 | 54.5 | 10900 |
Total - 203797.5 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of the above shares only 200 shares of Wockhardt Life and 200 shares of Neuland Labs, were not paid by the complainant and the same were wrongly delivered to the appellant. To prove the same, learned counsel referred to the letter of Investsmart dated 25.07.2000 wherein it is stated that transfer has been made of 200 shares of Wockhardt Life on 15th March, 2000. In response of this letter, appellant replied on 28.07.2000 and informed the opposite party that not only 200 shares of Wockhardt Life, 200 shares of Neuland Lab were also transferred wrongly to the complainant. It was requested by the learned counsel that the amount relating to these shares should have been ordered by the State Commission to be deducted from the payment to be made to the complainant. The value of these two shares is only Rs.4,600/- and Rs.10,900/- respectively. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party stated that when the shares of Wockhardt Life were transferred to the complainant they were purchased @ Rs.203.95 per share. Hence, Wockhardt Life shares were purchased for Rs.41,096/-. Similarly, the shares of Neuland Labs were purchased for Rs.36,176/-. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party further stated that the appellant is wrongly claiming the deduction as per the share rate existing in March, 2001, whereas the shares were purchased in 2000 and if the money is to be deducted the same should be deducted at the purchase price because the appellant did not inform immediately to the opposite party when the shares were transferred. For the first time the appellant informed after 7 months of the purchase and transfer of these shares when he realised that the value of these shares was going down. 7. Learned counsel further stated that as the case relate to original opposite party investsmart which has been taken over by current respondent HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. and records are not available of that period, hence, it is difficult to further clarify as to which shares were not paid by the complainant and were wrongly transferred to the complainant. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the letter dated 25.07.2000 of the opposite party, wherein the following has been mentioned:- “As you would be aware, 200 shares of Wockhardt Life were transferred to your account on March 15,2000. This was an error. Since you have already sold these shares, you are requested to give us back the delivery of the said 200 Wockhardt Life shares.” 9. From the above, it is clear that the opposite party has accepted the error in transferring the Wockhardt Life shares. However, the opposite party has also alleged that these shares were sold by the complainant. Appellant/complainant has not disclosed as on what prices these shares were sold. Moreover, it is seen from the statement of value of shares supplied by the complainant on the basis of which the State Commission has given liberty to the opposite party to deduct Rs.2,03,797.5, that the complainant has accepted in this statement that shares for Rs.2,03,797.5 were “wrongly delivered to me”. Once this statement has been filed by the complainant accepting the wrong delivery of the shares which are mentioned in the statement, it is not clear on what basis the same is now being denied by the complainant. The correspondence relating to only Wockhardt Life shares and Neuland Labs shares has been placed on record. The correspondence relating to other shares is not available on record. The appellant has also not filed any other proof that the payment has been made for other shares mentioned in this list. The opposite party has already complied with the State Commission’s order and has refunded eligible amount to the appellant/complainant. It is also not the case of the appellant/complainant that after preparing the list of wrongly delivered shares (as given in this statement), the complainant has paid purchase price of all the shares except for Wockhardt Life and Neuland Labs. Thus, the appellant has failed to establish her assertion in the light of her acceptance of wrongly delivered shares for Rs.2,03,797.5. 10. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. | 
