<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 23rd AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1986/2007<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Mohammed Jaffar,S/o Mohammed Ummer,Sericultural Demonstrator,Government Silk Farm Quarters,Magadi.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.Yatish,Manager,J.R.G Securities Limited,# 19/1, 5th Main,Next to Vijaya Bank Building,Behind C.B.I,Ganganagar,Bangalore – 560 032.(Advocate – Sri.Harish H.V)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.49,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP with regard to purchase and sale of shares as per the prevailing rates in the market. He become the member of the OP under membership No.10KPJF having share account No.10113048. He has disclosed the Bank account number to the OP to transact on his behalf bearing No.54037226628. That being so, OP has transacted on behalf of the complainant and withdrawn Rs.49,000/- on 12.04.2006 for the purchase of the shares and sale of the same to higher price. But thereafter some how when complainant got checked his Bank balance OP has not remitted the said amount along with the profit accrued in the sale of the shares. Thus complainant felt that he is duped. Though he made several requests and demands to OP to settle the dispute, it went in vain. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> Being aggrieved with the said order OP preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore at Appeal No.41/2008. The said appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 09.06.2008. The matter is remitted back to this Forum to disposal afresh after due notice to both the parties. In pursuance of the kind orders, notices were issued to the litigating parities. Both the parties appeared before this Forum. Then OP filed the version.<br /> <br /> The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of the version filed by the OP are as under.<br /> 2. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts, which are well within his knowledge. Complainant became the member of the OP membership No.10KPJF is true, account No.54037226628 is denied by the OP. According to OP there is an agreement entered into between them. If complainant fails to make payment of the consideration in respect of any one or more securities of shares JRG have a right and liberty to sell the securities and shares in proportionate to the amount not received. Complainant has transacted with the OP more than the amount that is paid to OP, he is still in due of Rs.3,884-38 as per the account maintained by the OP. The complainant had a share account No.10301166 and Bank account No.01190009606. The so called cheque given by the complainant towards the due bounced, that can be seen from the statement produced by the complainant himself. So when the complainant is the defaulter he can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. It is further contended that it is JRG who is the actual beneficiary. Money has gone to JRG. Passbook discloses the said fact. But still complainant has not made the said JRG securities as a party. Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. If the complainant is so advised he can proceed against JRG securities. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that he has become the member of the OP having share account No.10113048. He has also furnished his Bank account number to OP to transact on his behalf with regard to purchase and sale of the share in the open market. It is further contended that on 12.04.2006 OP has drawn Rs.49,000/- from his account for the purpose of purchase of shares and sale of the same at higher price.<br /> <br /> 7. Complainant has produced the documents to that effect. Thereafter on 24.04.2006 when he got checked his Bank balance it showed ‘nil’. He expected the OP to redeposit Rs.49,000/- along with the profit accrued due to the sale of the shares at higher price but nothing has happened. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands made to the OP have gone in vain. Complainant has also produced the Bank extract and other relevant documents with regard to share transaction.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. When he transacted with the OP he had a different Bank account number. The account number which he furnished namely 54037226628 is false. The very documents produced by the complainant himself shows the account number as 01190009606. We find force in the contention of the OP in that regard. According to the OP on 12.04.2006 he has drawn amount of Rs.49,000/- for purchase of the shares with an intention to sell at higher rate. So the transaction if any that has taken place is between the complainant and JRG securities. We find substance in the defence set out by the OP that the complaint is bad for non joinder of JRG securities.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through the records and other connecting documents produced by the OP, it appears the said money has gone to JRG securities. Even the passbook of the complainant refers to the said fact. When that is so, complainant would have proceeded against JRG securities, intelligently he has avoided it. On the other hand he harped upon the OP. It is further contended by the OP that complainant paid the said amount through the cheque and the cheque is dishonored. There is an entry to that effect. That the said cheque bounce is not denied by the complainant. It is further alleged by the OP that complainant has transacted with OP more than the amount he has paid. That fact is also not denied by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. It is further contended by the OP that actually complainant himself is the defaulter and he is in due of Rs.3,884-38. Without disclosing all these facts it appears complainant has come up with this case. The fact that he is in due of the above said amount to OP is not denied by the complainant. When that is so, he can’t allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The accounts produced by the complainant himself speaks to the bouncing of the said cheque. With all that he has come up with this complaint. We find complainant has utterly failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23rd day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />