BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.950 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.252 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE
Between:
1. M/s Motilal Oswal Securities Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director
Regd. Office 81/82, 8th Floor, Balaji Bhavan
Nariman Point, Mumbai-064
2. The Branch Manager
Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Vijaya Complex,
Kurnool Road, Ongole-002
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Paturi Vengaiah S/o P.Govindaiah
R/o Bodduvaripalem Village, Santhanuthalapadu
Mandal, Prakasam District
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri S.Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.Hari Babu
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant in order to invest money in the marketable securities opened Accounts-Trading A/c bearing No.WONG.P161 and Demat A/c bearing No.1201090000662050 with the opposite party no.2 in the year 2006. The complainant opened another Demat A/c bearing No.125388/5 with M/s Geojit Financial Services Ltd., (DP ID.No.300239) at their Ongole Branch and requested the opposite party no.2 to transfer all the shares from Demat A/c of the complainant to the Demat A/c of the complainant with M/s Geojit Financial Services Ltd., by furnishing the full details of the accounts and by issuing Blank Delivery Instructions slips as demanded by the opposite party no.2. The complainant was informed by the opposite party no.2 that as the 1000 shares of M/s India Bulls Finance Ltd., were pledged as margin/security for taking positions in F & O Segment, the shares would be transferred to the Demat A/c of the complainant with M/s Geojit Financial Securities Limited after expiry of the F & O market in July 2008. The opposite party no.2 transferred some of the shares only. The complainant did not receive the shares detailed in the schedule from his Demat A/c with the opposite parties, he got issued legal notice dated 9.8.2008 to the opposite parties with demand for transfer of the shares mentioned in the notice. The notices were served on the opposite parties, they did not choose to transfer the shares nor to reply the notice. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to transfer schedule mentioned shares from the Demat Account of the complainant with them to the Demat Account of the complainant with M/s Geojit Financial Services Limited and to pay the loss as claimed in the complaint and also to pay compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties did not choose to contest the matter and remained exparte.
4. The District forum allowed the complaint holding that non-transfer of shares in favour of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed the appeal contending that opportunity of being heard is not given and the documents filed on behalf of the opposite party were not considered.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffer from misappreciation of fact or law?
7. The complainant held Demat account with the opposite party no.2 and M/s Geojit Financial Services Limited. The complainant had submitted that he suffered loss owing to non-transfer of shares mentioned in the schedule from his Demat Account with the opposite parties to his Demat Account with M/s Geojit Financial Services Limited.
8. The District Forum based its finding on the Demat statement showing the stock holding. The District Forum has not considered the other documents filed by the complainant and the averments of the complaint that the opposite parties had not transferred the shares as they were pledged by the complainant as security for taking positions in F&O segment as also the contention of the opposite parties that the shares would be transferred after the expiry of F&O market in the month of July, 2008.
9. The District Forum failed to consider notice dated 4.8.2008 got issued by the complainant, the letter dated 5.9.2008 of SEBI and that of NSE Chennai. The opposite pares have submitted that the documents filed on their behalf were not considered.
10. Reason is the life of the order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the opposite parties rendered deficient service, the District Forum has to consider all the documents placed on record. Even if it is assumed that the opposite parties are for the some reason or the other were set exparte, it does not obviate the necessity of considering all the documents filed by the complainant. A cryptic order without appreciating the facts vis-à-vis the documentary evidence does not stand to the scrutiny of facts or law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District forum is liable to be set aside. We are inclined to remand the matter by providing opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and for the District forum to dispose of the matter by taking into consideration of the affidavits of the parties if any, and the documents filed on their behalf.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District forum is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Forum for denova enquiry. The parties shall appeal before the District Forum on 31.1.2011. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.30.12.2010
KMK*
