Md. Tanvir Ansari,
son of Md. Sagir Ansari, 53/C, Kazi Para Lane,
Shibpur, P.S. Shibpur,
District. Howrah. Complainant.
- Versus -
1. Mr. Anand Rathi,
Chairman,
B-2, Subham Centre ( 5th floor ),
Cardinal Gracious Road, Chable, Andhri ( East ),
Mumbai. 400099.
2. Mr. Narayan Churiwal,
Manager Operations Eastern Region,
Anand Rathi Group, 502, Central Plaza,
2/6, Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata . 700020.
3. Mr. Sanjay Vora,
Anand Rathi Group,
502, Central Plaza, 2/6, Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata. 700 020.
4. Mr. Uday Tiwari,
C/o. Kashi Tiwari, Garden Gate, P.O. B. Garden,
P.S. Shibpur, District. Howrah,
PIN 711 103.
5. Mr. Amit Jha,
Branch Manager,
Anand Rathi Group,
13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane,
Howrah .711 101. Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T
Honble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
Honble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya
Honble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakrabroty.
O R D E R NO. 9 Dated 8th June, 2010.
Record is put up today for order.
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant Md. Tanvir Ansari against the o.p. namely ( 1 ) Mr. Anand Rathi, ( 2) Mr. Narayan Churiwal, (3) Mr. Sanjay Vora, (4) Mr. Uday Tiwari, ( 5) Mr. Amit Jha, alleging deficiency in service.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a permanent resident of 53/6, Kazi Para Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah, had opened a D. Mat. Trading account for online share transaction to the o.ps. in the name and style of Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brothers Ltd. having their business through out India and its branch office at Howrah. That initially a couple of transactions took place and even some shares were brought in the complainants account after his approval and with his consent and knowledge. The o.p. conducted rampart trading from the complainants account by buying and selling shares without informing him or bringing any transactional details to him within the span of 6 to 8 months of its transaction the o.ps. kept him away all details of transactions and even sold shares freely from the complainants account without his knowledge and violating the terms and conditions of stock trading laid down in the rules and by laws in the company itself also. It is further stated that the o.ps. ought to have taken written or oral consent or authorization from the complainant as per rule. In spite of that the o.ps. deliberately and intentionally conducted rampant business from the complainants account most unethically and illegally breaking all norms of trading and by not taking his consent or informing him of the stock or shares that were purchased or kept pending awaiting his consent and incurred unwanted heavy losses to him. It is further alleged that gradually o.p. decreased and stopped total updating and confirming the transaction from the complainant in regard to the buying and selling of shares despite the fact that there was continuous trading from his account behind his back even when he was out of station heavy trading was conducted from his account without seeking his confirmation resulting incurring heavy losses. It is also alleged that complainants father was threatened and blackmailed of heavy deduction and automatic sale of shares from his account by the o.ps. for which he conceded to their demand and issued them a cheque no. 989666 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- dated 10.10.2005 which was encashed by the o.ps. on 15.10.2008. In spite of such payment when the shares were sold off without the knowledge or permission of the complainant, on enquiry from the o.p. no. 4 when such illegality was committed he turned cold solders and kept quiet. Thereafter complainant went through the sheets of transaction details which were sent to him and discovered that there was rampant transaction resulting in a loss worth thousands of rupees and the worst part of it being that despite repeated questions and requests for the status of the account by the complainant. It is stated that complainant never authorized the opposite party to conduct business behind his back and without his confirmation which they did and also did not provide the complainant with any information taking undue advantage of the faith and trust reposed in them.
The o.ps. no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 appeared through constituted attorney Mr. Narayan Churiwal, o.p. no. 2, and filed written objection wherein they denied all the material allegations made in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no. 4 in this case did not appear and as such the matter was heard ex parte against him.
Now point for determination is that whether the complainant is entitled to get the order as prayed for .
DECISION WITH REASONS :
At the outset of argument it is stated that at the time of hearing the o.ps. did not appear on call and the case was heard ex parte.
In support of the case the complainant has filed certain documents with the petition of complaint and also filed statement of share transaction in two sheets and submitted that the document will prove that o.ps. have caused loss to the complainant. Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the documents along with the affidavit in chief goes to prove that the complainant suffered loss due to rampant business with the o.ps. and the said rampant trading was done without informing him or bringing any transactional details and the o.ps. kept all details clandestine by freely buying and selling shares from his account without his knowledge and consent violated the terms and conditions of stock trading rules.
Upon the perusal of the material on records i.e., the statement and also on enquiry the ld. Advocate could not explain specifically the complainant had suffered loss and whether consent was given at the time transaction and the o.ps. s written version supported by the affidavit denied the allegation made in the petition of complaint and has stated that the concerned trading account is an offline account and not an online account. All transactions in the account are done as per the request of the complainant. All the transactions and trade were known to the complainant and daily contract notes sent to him regularly in his mail ID
In the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant may approach to the civil court for getting proper decision after availing the opportunities to produce necessary evidence.
Thus, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the complaint petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is dismissed on such ground.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties, free of costs.
