O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Op are, that he has entered into an agreement with the stock broker that is the Op, through sub-broker to trade in equities and futures and options. That he was allotted client code BNG-GAD-R-10417 during May 2007 and since then he has been trading both in equities and futures. His initial margin/capital was about 6 to 7 lakhs was available with Op capital and debt market. There is no debt balance in his ledger maintained by ACDL since May 2007 till 21/01/2008. That his purchases of equities and futures are made by sub-broker on his request and every day the transactions are confirmed and used to get details of it no discrepancy on purchase and sale through sub-broker and he has full faith in his broker actions. It is further contended that he had always maintained credit balance and has given equity holding statement in tabular manner in this complaint and stated that total loss could be seen from it and that could have been avoided provided the broker had not taken hasty decision to sell his future position on 22/01/2008. There was no consistency and in a panic selling market rates which are barest minimum. Fall of stock market on 22/01/2008 and further steep fall of stock market on that day was unprecedented in the history of Indian stock market. That the Op who have assessed default from what period and that the Op took advantage of agreement and clauses there in to sell its assets. That the Op by using agreement clause on a days default on 22/01/2008 which was not normal circumstances by selling of his future positions wherein he has incurred loss to an extent of Rs.2.51 lakhs. This hasty decision of stock broker has caused huge loss to him. Thereafter, he referring to improvement of the stock market subsequently has alleged that the OP has caused loss of Rs.2.51 lakhs to him by selling his future positions and thus has prayed for a direction to op to compensate him Rs.2.51 lakhs.<br /> <br /> OP has appeared through an advocate and filed version admitting the transactions that the complainant had with them has stated that the complainant after opening an account with them, carried out trade in the said account through the sub-broker. That the complainant in his complaint has made statement in the name of Mrs. Renuka P. Gandigudi as if the said Mrs. Renuka P. Gandigudi is the complainant. That the complainant has stated that he has been allotted client code as BNG/GAD/R10417 given by them which actually incorrect and stated that the complainant is allotted code No.BNG/GAD/P12691. That the allegations of the complainant that the complainant initially invested margin capital of about 6 to 7 lakhs is not borne out by record and denying the allegations of the complainant that they have default in the transactions arbitratary have stated that they have been continuously intimating the sub-broker through whom the complainant used the trade about margin payment requirement from time to time besides giving requisition through documents. That on 22/01/2008, the complainant in his account had margin short fall of Rs.1,05,788.26 and as a measure of crisis management and with due difference to their obligation under SEBI to the regulations to the Securities Market he had closed out the open futures position of the complainant. Denying that the complainant had substantial futures margin in his account as on 21/01/2008 have stated that the margin futures was not sufficient to cover the short fall and thus the Op further denying the allegations of the complainant that due to hasty disposal of the shares have caused loss to an extent of Rs.2,51,000/- have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Op filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their complaint.<br /> <br /> This forum by its order dated 31/05/2008 had disposed off the complaint on merits by dismissing it. As against that order the complainant had preferred an appeal to the State Commission in Appeal No.1359/08 which came to be allowed by State Commission on 20/10/2008 and remanded the case for reconsideration and disposal afresh. While remanding this matter, the State Commission has made certain observations out of which two observations are material are reproduced here “DF without ascertaining whether the accounts produced by the Op is in respect of code bearing No.BNG-GAD-P-10417 or it relates to code bearing No.BNG-GAD-P12691 proceeded to dispose of the complaint. The second observation is “Therefore, we are of the view since DF has not recorded any findings on merit with reference to the relevant documents relating to code bearing No.BNG-GAD-P 10417, the matter requires consideration”. As per this direction of the State Commission, this forum stated to had not considered whether account produced by the Op is pertaining to account No.10417 or 12691 and directed this forum to give findings on the margin amount with reference to code No.P-10417.<br /> <br /> The complainant in the complaint has stated that Op has allotted him a code No.BNG-GAD-P-10417 whereas the Op in his version has contended that code number furnished by the complainant is factually wrong and code number allotted to the complainant is P-12691 even after the filing the version by the Op, the complainant found to have not got, the complaint amended by substituting the actual code number under which he traded in shares. But even thereafter proceeded claiming as if he has been allotted code number P-10417. Accordingly, the State Commission has also made an observation finding fault with this forum in having not recorded any findings on merits with reference to relevant documents relating to code bearing No.BNG-GAD-P-10417 when even as indicated by the Op when this code number was not allotted to the complainant for trade then there is no meaning in recording, finding on merits on this code number to find out whether there was sufficient minimum balance maintained in that account and trading by Op is wrong or illegal. The complainant even before the State Commission ought to have realized and submitted the correct code number allotted to him by the Op and under which code number he has traded in shares. If he were to be sure of code number allotted to him he ought to have submitted before the State Commission that the code number allotted to him by the Op was a particular code number under which he has traded but he did not do that. Thus it appears that the complainant himself is not clear about the code number that he was allotted and under which code number he has traded. <br /> <br /> After remanding of this complaint by the State Commission, the complainant got appointed a Chartered Accountant as an expert to enquire into the trading account and to submit his report regarding availability of the margin amount in the trading account of the complainant as on a particular date. The Op has filed objection to this report by questioning its correctness. Even on going through the report of this expert, we find that the expert has not mentioned any where in his report in respect of which trading account he has enquired into and submitted report. The expert has casually mentioned that this complainant had a trading account with the Op but he has not mentioned trading account number and in respect of which trading account he has examined and given his finding. Therefore, considering all this aspects in their totality it emerges that the complainant himself is under confusion about his trading account number. Besides this discrepancy if we enter into the merits of the case we are of the view that issue require a detail and depth investigation in order to determine the dispute between the parties. The parties have produced statements of certain account which contain minute details disclosing the market rate of the shares prevailing on each date, the fall of the market and then increase of market position besides containing the detail of purchase and sales of shares from time to time. These details of purchase and sales shall have to be worked out to know whether the purchase and sales have resulted in loss and the quantum of loss or gain and then to work out whether loss suffered by the broker in trading with the share has brought the margin money to the negative balance which compelled the Op to sell the futures option of the complainant. These details and the contentions shall have to be tested by the Court or Forum by subjecting parties to cross examine and also by confronting the relevant documents which cannot be done by this forum in this summary nature of the enquiry. As such, we under these circumstances find it just for the complainant to approach Civil Court for his remedy. As the result, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for his remedy.<br /> <br /> Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 29th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />