KERALA STATE CONUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL 1121/01 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.6.2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI,K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Prassanna Rajeev, : APPELLANTS W/o K.V.Rajeev, “Krishna Kripa” Vadakkothara, Pazhayannur. 2. K.V.Rajeev, -do- -do- (By Adv.P.A.Ahamed) Vs. Siby Joseph, : RESPONDENT Proprietor, Siby & Co. (Stock and share Consultants), 2nd Floor, City Tourist Home, Statue Road. Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.V.K.Radhakrishnan Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the complainants in OP.438/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint has been filed by the appellants for realization of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- said to be due from the opposite parties as the share value. It is the case of the complainants/appellants that they entrusted 100 shares of Sterlite Industries(India) Limited to the opposite party, share brokers for sale, in February 2000. It was assured that the TD (transfer deed) forms will be sent to the complainant within 2 days. After the receipt of the TD forms complainant agreed for sale of the shares at Rs. 925/- per share. The opposite party informed that the shares can be sold only at Rs.900/- per share which is agreed to by the complainants. On 3.3.2000, opposite party informed the complainants that he has made the transfer at Rs.900/- per share. It was agreed that the payment will be made within 21 days. The signed TD form was forwarded through courier on 4.3.2000. Subsequently the complainant was informed that the signature of the complainants in the TD form are touching each other. The complainants asked the opposite party to provide new TD forms. Another TD form duly filled up were sent on 25.3.2000. The complainants were badly need of money as they were engaged in the construction of a house. As there was no response from the opposite party the 2nd complainant went to the office of the opposite party, but he could not meet the opposite party. He was told by one of the staff of the opposite party that a sum of Rs.30000/- has been sent to him by DD. On 18.4.2000 the complainant received DD for a sum of Rs.30000/-. It is learnt that the opposite party has transferred the shares and received the sale consideration. At the time the price of Sterlite shares had touched Rs.1210/-. It is alleged that the opposite party share broker has engaged in unfair trade practice and deceived the complainants. The opposite party has filed a version that there was no agreement to sell the shares at the rate of Rs.900/-. It was only directed to sale the shares at the market rate. The amount could not be paid as the transaction could not materialise as the signatures in the TD form were touching each other and the exchange returned the TD forms. The complainant did not sent other TD form properly signed. Fresh TD forms were received only on 28.3.2000. The shares were not sold. On account of the repeated request of the complainant the opposite party has given him Rs.30000/-. As the new TD forms were received only on 28.3.2000 he is liable to pay the amount only within one month from the above date. It is denied that the opposite party has sold the shares for a higher amount. It is stressed that there is no deficiency in service. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1,P2, R1 to R6. The respondent/opposite party has produced the judgment of the 3rd Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram in the Original Suit 1632/2000 instituted by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,000/- paid by the opposite party to the complainants. The allegations therein are that on the request of the complainants the opposite parties ie, the Firm and the proprietor, advanced Rs.30000/- before effecting the transfer of shares But the signatures in the TD form did not match specimen signatures and hence the transfer could not be effected. Hence the amount is sought to be returned. It is also mentioned that the opposite parties were penalized as per the SEBI guidelines. They have lost reputation and goodwill. They have sought for a compensation of Rs.25000/- along with Rs.30000/-. The defendants/complainants have reiterated the contentions mentioned in the OP filed herein and they have also raised a counter claim for a sum of Rs.58650/-, the balance due with 18% interest; altogether a sum of Rs.68,327/-. It is seen from the judgment produced that PW1 and DW1 were examined and Ext.A1 to A7 and B1 marked. The civil court allowed the suit claim to the extend of a sum of Rs.31460/- with interest at 18% from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter with interest at 6% till realization. The counter claim raised was dismissed with cost. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainants/appellants that appeal has been filed over the decision in OS.1632/2000. The decision in the OS is dated 3.9.03. We find that the contentions raised in the OS by the respective sides and in the OP before the Forum and in the instant appeal are the same. In the circumstance we find that parallel adjudications are not called for. It would be appropriate to leave the matter to be thrashed out in the civil appeal. In the result appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI,K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
