COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 30th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1197/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Bangalore -V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Bangalore -<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.90,256/- and a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant a small investor under OP. During the last week of May 2006 as per the said Branch Office version there was a margin shortfall in her F & O account for which she requested OP grant her sometime to clear the account. With all that without the knowledge of the complainant OP at his whim and fancy cut off F & O position on 15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 which due to this highhandedness of the OP. Complainant for no fault of her, is made to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.90,256/-. Though complainant was ready and willing to make good of the margin shortfall, but OP violating the terms and conditions of the service went to the extent of selling the securities offered as collateral security, thereby again caused monetary loss of Rs.2,18,845.56 and Rs.21,382.18. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to set right the things, went in futile. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The unilateral action initiated by the OP is unjust and improper. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complainant is bound by NSE rules and regulations and also Member Client Agreement (MCA). As admitted by the complainant herself she is in due of certain amount to the OP. OP repeatedly requested the complainant to clear off the said dues by affording enough time, it went in vain. Under the circumstances as per the terms of contract they have got every right to sell the securities to compensate them. OP had no option to square off the collateral securities offered by the complainant on 21.06.2006. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The other allegations are baseless. OP is not due of any amount muchless shares to be allotted and given to the complainant. On the other hand complainant herself is in due of Rs.17,956/-. When complainant herself is a defaulter, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. OP exhausted the remedy available under clause 5 of MCA to recovery of the amount in due. The allege loss suffered by the complainant is because of her own negligence and carelessness. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. On the plain reading of the complaint itself it makes abundantly clear that during the last week of May 2006 there was a marginal shortfall in the complainant’s F & O account for which she requested the OP to give some time to clear the said account. Now the grievance of the complainant is that without her notice and consent OP cutt off the F & O position on 15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 thereby she suffered a loss. In another breathe she herself admits OP had no alternative other than assume that they would have liquidated the stock kept with them as collateral to clear off the debt balance, which is the usual practice in the trading circles. So that is what OP as done. This submission of the complainant cuts at the root of her case.<br /> <br /> Further complainant says that due to ulterior act of the OP she has suffered the monetary loss. According to her though she was ready and willing to make cut off marginal shortfall within a short time, but still OP did not provide her that opportunity. On the other hand sold the securities at a prejudicial time causing her monetary loss. As against this it is contended by the OP that they did offer sufficient and reasonable time to the complainant to pay the amount in due. The fact that complainant is bound by MCA terms and conditions is not at dispute. There is a proof that OP has given enough time to complainant o pay her <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (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 30th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />