Delhi

North East

CC/187/2014

Sudhir Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Omji Money Omji Commotradi P. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 187/14

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Sudhir Mahajan R/o 24/12 (DS) Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015	Complainant
	Versus
1.                     2.       3.	OmjiMoney @ Omji Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Mr. Amit Jindal 18 North West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-110026   Also At:- Omji Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. B-1/63, Sector-11, Faridabad, Haryana-121001   Sh. Amit Jindal 1845 1st Floor Sector 16 Faridabad 121006   MCX Kanchanjunga Upper Ground Floor 18 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party No.1                   Opposite Party No.2           Opposite Party No.3

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

19.05.14 03.03.23 27.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant opened a Commodity Trading Account with Opposite Party No.1 and official of Opposite Party No.1 got blank application form signed by Complainant and Complainant also gave cheques of Rs. 50,000/- bearing no. 123456 013101 dated 09.04.13. The Complainant was assured that transaction shall be done with Complainant authorization. The Opposite Party started to carry out transaction from Complainant’s account. The Complainant talked with Opposite Party No.1 about the transaction but he did not get a satisfactory response. The officials of Opposite Party No.1 who were doing transaction from account without Complainant authorization admitted their wrong doing and offered Complainant Rs. 28,000/- which is reflected in ledger account statement. As per ledger statement Rs. 28,567.17/- were to be paid by Opposite Party by way of transfer in Complainant bank account. However, there was no transfer to Complainant bank account despite repeated follow up. The Complainant stated after repeated follow up Opposite Party had not refunded the amount of Rs. 46,000/- to Complainant. The Complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 46,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. till realization from the date of payment by Complainant to Opposite Party till actual recovery. He further prayed for  Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were proceeded against            Ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.15.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.3 that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3. It is stated that Complainant is not a consumer and he has not availed any service for consideration from Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.3 provides only a trading platform or trading facility to the Opposite Party No.1 for buying or selling of the goods. It has denied the averments made in the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of Raghavendra Prasad, Senior Vice President of the Opposite Party No.3, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.3. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had opened account with Opposite Party No.1 and paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque dated 09.04.13. The said amount was credited in the account of Opposite Party No.1. It is the case of the Complainant that the transactions were to be done with the authorization of the Complainant but the transactions were not done with the authorization of the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act and also that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3.
8. The Complainant has relied upon a judgment dated 07.04.16 passed by the  Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in revision petition no. 4170 of 2008 and revision petition no. 4171 of 2008. As per the law laid by the Hon’ble NCDRC the Complainant is a consumer in the present case, the transactions were not done with the authorization of the Complainant. In the above said judgment, it is held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that transactions were required to be done with the authorization of the Complainant.  The facts of the case in hand are similar to the revision petition no. 4170 of 2008 and revision petition no. 4171 of 2008.
9.  The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not contest the case thus there is no defence. From the evidence produced by the Complainant on record shows that he has deposited Rs. 50,000/- with Opposite Party No.1 and he had opened a Commodity Trading Account with Opposite Party No.1. It is also proved that the Complainant has paid Rs. 50,000/- by way of cheque to Opposite Party No.1 and the transactions were not done by the Opposite Party No.1 with the authorization of the Complainant. Therefore, in view of the above discussed judgment, it is proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. There is no liability of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 as the account was opened in the name of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 46,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. An amount of  Rs. 20,000/- shall also be paid by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery on account of litigation expenses and harassment.
10. Order announced on 27.04.23

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President