Haryana

StateCommission

A/1154/2016

ROHIT KHERA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI SECURITIES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.SATHI

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1154 of 2016

Date of Institution:  02.12.2016

Date of Decision:    06.03.2018

 

Rohit Khera, aged about 31 years son of Shri Ravinder Nath Khera, resident of House No.232, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

 

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      ICICI Securities Limited, through its Manager.

 

2.      ICICI Web Trade Limited, Head Office, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.

 

3.      Corporate Office of ICICI Limited, Stan Rose House 2^nd Floor, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025.

 

4.      ICICI Bank Limited, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

 

……Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Mr. R.S. Sathi, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Sandeep Suri, counsel for the respondents.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by complainant that Opposite Parties (in short ‘OPs’) purchased 500 shares of Bharti Airtel for Rs.4,99,000/- at the rate of Rs.998/- per share without his consent. Lateron those shares were sold for Rs.891.85 per share causing loss of Rs.53,153/- to him. He asked OPs to give reason for selling the shares without his direction and confirmation. The payment was withdrawn from his bank account linked with Online Trading Account, so, OPs be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- as prayed for.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by OPs that shares were purchased because the order was placed directly through complainant’s Online Trading Account and user ID and password are only known to the person concerned. On 22.10.2007 amount of Rs.1,05,600/- was blocked in his account towards Initial Margin requirements of his open position in said contract. The shares were not sold without his consent. His allocation was short of required margin for an amount of Rs.15,600/-. The averments raised by complainant were altogether false and complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short ‘District Forum’) dismissed complaint vide impugned order dated 04.11.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that the matter pertains to sale and purchase of the shares which is a commercial transaction. As per Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protect Act, 1986 (in short ‘Act’) a person cannot be considered as a consumer if there is any commercial transaction. When complainant was not covered by the definition of consumer, District Forum was not competent to adjudicate upon the dispute because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Servies, Haryana and others (2013) 10 SCC 136 and Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as “Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli” decided on 19.01.1995. More so complainant has alleged that the amount was withdrawn without his instructions and there was no reason to sell at lower price. This dispute requires lot of evidence and can be adjudicated upon effectively by the Civil Court. When fraud is pleaded and voluminous evidence is required, the matter should be agitated before Civil Court. So also the complaint was not maintainable. As a sequel to above discussions, request of the complainant cannot be allowed and the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, he is granted liberty to approach competent fora and may claim benefit of limitation as provided in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute–1995(3) SCC 583.

  

 

Announced 06.03.2018

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

D.R.