Haryana

StateCommission

A/839/2014

D.P.Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karvy Stock Broking Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.839 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 19.09.2014

Date of Decision: 15.11.2016

 

D.P.Saini, Saini Sadan, Shri Hari Om Shakti Ashram, Sector 12-A, Gurgaon (Haryana)122001.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Shop No.18, Ground Floor, Sector 14, Near HUDA Office, Opposite AKD Tower, Gurgaon, (Haryana)-122001.

2.      M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., Head office, Karvy Centre, 8-2-609/K, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Bhuvan Luthra, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Puneet Kansal, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the  complainant that for the purpose of investment he handed over Five cheques of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the representative of the opposite party (O.P.) because it was told that he could purchase shares without having trading account. None of his relatives or friends were involved in investment. O.P.Nos.1 and 2 mis-utilized his five cheques and when he asked to return the same they did not oblige.  They mis-utilized that amount and cheated him. So they be directed to refund the aforesaid amount.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that complainant gave five cheques to deposit in different names as per letter dated 22.03.2007 which were as under:-

“cheque No./Date of Encashment	Amount of cheque	Trading A/c No. (Name of A/c Holder)	Names of Equity shares to be purchased	No. of shares
476622/26.08.06	100000.00	414629 (Saraswati Saini)	Tata Tea Ltd Hindalco Ins. Ashok Leyland Mcdowell & Comp. Ltd	20   200   500   50
476625/13.10.06	180000.00	-do-	Rolta India Ltd	800
476621/26.08.06	90000.00	414630 (Subhash Chander Saini)	Mc Leod Russel India Reliance comm. Ventu Century Textile Ltd. Polaris Software Ltd.	100     50   100     150
476627/15.12.06	90000.00	-do-	Rolta India Ltd	425
476623/26.08.06	90000.00	414631 (Sidharth Shankar Saini)	Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Bombay Dyeing & Mft	100     100”

 

They were the wife, son and brother of complainant. They deposited the amount as per his directions. So he could not asked to return the same. Even otherwise his wife, son and brother challenged the amount deposited in their favour, but, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in the following applications:-

          “1/2008      Saraswati Saini Vs. Karvy Stock            06.11.2009

 

          2/2008       Subhash Chander Saini Vs Karvy Stock 06.11.2009

          3/2008    Siddharath Shankar Saini Vs Karvy Stock 06.11.2009”

Objections about maintainability of complaint, non-joinder and misjoinder of parties, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.08.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that learned District forum did not appreciate law and facts properly. 

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  he handed over five cheques for investment in his name  and not any other person.  O.Ps. mis-utilized that fund and were liable to refund the same.  He was not a party in the proceedings before arbitrator.  Learned District Forum  failed to appreciate this fact and wrongly dismissed this complaint, so impugned order be set aside.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Letter Annexure C-1 was written by complainant wherein it is specifically mentioned that in which account the amount is to be mentioned and which shares are to be purchased  as mentioned above and O.Ps. have acted accordingly.  Complainant has miserably failed to show that letter was not written by him, so he cannot get out of the same.

8.      More so, in aforesaid arbitration proceedings order was passed on 06.11.2009 copies of which are Ex.OP1 to OP3. It was specifically opined therein that amount was deposited by D.P.Saini in-collusion with them. It shows that amount was deposited in their account as directed by D.P.Saini  i.e. complainant.  An appeal filed against those orders was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court in F.A.O No.6934 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Subhash Chander Saini Vs. Karvy Stock Broking Limited and others decided on 12.01.2012.  It shows that the O.Ps. have not mis-utilized the fund and have acted according to directions of complainant.  The findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

November 15th, 2014

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 S.K.