JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant’s husband Sri Manjul Haldar took voluntary retirement from service due to medical incapacity and they have only unemployed girl child and after discussion with Mr. Sumanta Mondal C.O.O. op no.1 of M/s KNB Wealth op no.2 the complainant tied up with op no.2’s group of companies vide KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. and KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. on 08.08.2013.
As because the complainant is purely a house wife in all the cases her husband Sri Manjul Haldar acted and has been acting on her behalf. Number of days had been passed and so many conversations were made by the complainant with op nos.1 & 2 but she could not start trading in full as op nos. 1 & 2 kept mum and op nos. 1 & 2’s silence proves that they are habitual in unfair trade practice and also reluctant to render proper service to the consumer.
Fact remains complainant tied up with BMA Wealth Creators Pvt. Ltd. wherein op no.1 was the branch manager who left that company and joined in M/s KNB Wealth and then compelled the complainant to join in the same company by giving commitment to give better facility but now he is silent. Op no.1 suggested to sign in the blank forms on the plea that if the complainants fill the forms and any mistake/overwriting, in the forms it is found that it will be rejected so as per op no.1’s advice complainants handed over the blank copy of account opening forms to Smt Mohua Maity op no.3, op no1’s office staff and that was duly signed by op no.3 and op no.1 had committed that he would get filled up forms and copy of the filled in form with the terms and conditions approved by the office will be sent to the complainant. But till date the said copy is not received by the complainant.
The complainant already opened four numbers of accounts but could not start trading in full as she could not get sitting facility as committed by op no.1. Though op no.1 signed the terms and conditions for online trading account against remiser account to be opened document by op no.3, as introducer and delivered to the complainant. But now complainant came to know that op no.3 already left the company. Op no.1 assured the complainant to give a laptop with dongle and a mobile phone with SIM card to her but that has not been yet delivered and while discussing with op no.1, op no.1 never told the complainant that DP account was with MPSE Securities Ltd. instead of M/s KNB Wealth and it seems that the accounts opened are not under “Life time DP maintenance charges” as per committed terms and conditions.
The commission out of Brokerage and DP charge are not paid to the complainant as yet and narrating the whole fact, the complainant issued a letter to M/s KNB Wealth op no.2 on 25.01.2014 but no reply was received by the complainant as yet. Smt. Mohua Maity op no.3 was contacted by the complainant and in turn op no.2 assured to be a witness as op no.1 got the filled account opening forms and signed the terms and conditions for online trading account against remiser account to be opened document by her and also all the actions/commitments made by the op no.1 to the complainant were in her presence. But finally on 01.04.2014 a letter was sent by the complainant to op no.1 but no reply was received from his end and her issue is kept unsolved and in the above circumstances complainants as consumer prayed for refund of deposited amount with interest, incidental chrages and for mental agony and harassment and cost of laptop and also litigation cost against the op for their unfair trade practice.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that complainant came to the KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. with a proposal that she is interested in trading business with the KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. as a remiser since she disclosed that she had good number of client and she gave proposal to the company that she will take commission from the company against the said business and one commercial term was executed by the op no.1 and the complainants. So, complainant is not come under the definition of the consumer as per the C.P. Act 1986.
Further it is submitted that the op no.2is a private limited company and is engaged with the business of trading of various shares, commodities etc. and according to rules and regulations of SEBI and all the franchises are doing their trading from the office of the op no.2 and the franchise or remiser was doing their trading from the office of the op no.2 as and when required.
It is specifically mentioned that there is no provision in the op no.2 company to give any goods to any remiser and there is every infrastructure in the office of the op no.2 in their office and the goods which are used for trading those goods are not permitted to take away from the office of franchise or remiser. Further it is submitted that op no.3 has no relation with op no.2 company at present since she had left the service of the company six months back and she had no authority to sign any letter on behalf of any company under KNB Group of Companies and practically the present case is filed for personal grudge and malice. So, the entire complaint is false for which it shall be dismissed.
On the other hand Op no.3 by filing written statement submitted that she was working in M/s BMA Wealth Creators Pvt. Ltd. and wherein Mr. Sumanta Mondal op no.1 was the Branch Manager and left that company and joined M/s KNB Wealth op no.2 and after some days op no.1 requested op no.3 to join in op no.2’s company for better salary and as per op no.1’s request op no.3 joined op no.2’s company under op no.1 After a few days op no.3 came to know that op no.1 called Smt. Champa Haldar (complainant) who was also in M./s BMA Wealth Creators Pvt. Ltd. to join op no.2’s company and attending op no.2’s office by the complainant, op no.1 called op no.3 and by virtue of the immediate boss of op no.3 he got signed the “terms and conditions for online trading account against remiser account to be opened” document by op no.3 in presence of the complainant and delivered to her.
It is further submitted that op no.1 suggested that the complainant to sing in the blank forms on the plea that if the complainants filled the forms and any mistake/overwriting then the forms will be rejected so as per op no.1’s advise the complainants handed over the blank copy of account opening forms to op no.3 which was duly signed only and thereafter op no.3 got filled the forms and handed over to op no.1. Fact remains complainant already opened four number of accounts but she could not start trading in full as she could not get sitting facility and that op no.1 assured the complainant in op no.3’s presence to give a laptop with dongle and a mobile phone with SIM card to the complainant and while discussing in presence of op no.3, op no.1 never told the complainant that DP account is with MPSE Securities Ltd. instead of op no.2. Complainant contacted with op no.3 and in turn she assured the complainant to be a witness at any Forum as all the actions and commitments made by the op no.1 to the complainant was in op no.3’s presence and other facts narrated in the complaint are true and within their knowledge of op no.3. So, she has prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
On critical appreciation of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of the op and the complainant and also the argument of the complainant’s husband himself and further considering the material documents including the specific allegations of the complainant and the version of the op, it is clear that agreement was in between the complainant and M/s KNB Wealth Pvt. Ltd. and the heading of the said document was “Commercial Terms” with commission structure of the complainant/remiser/broker with other miscellaneous terms and from that document it is clear that complainant is a franchise of the business of M/s KNB Wealth Pvt. Ltd. and that business deals with share trading and it is also proved that complainant was previously trading with BMA Wealth Creators Pvt. Ltd. which is admitted by the complainant and she came to the KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. and KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. for trading business as remiser for trading on commission basis as proved by the documents submitted by the complainant and it is also proved that the complainant had been trading business with the op company as a broker/remiser having her code No. C412 which was admitted by the complainant.
It is also proved from the complainants’ own answer that complainant brought 4 persons for on line trading including herself having her Code No. C4120001 and her ledger with KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. which showed a balance of Rs. 170/- as on 19.05.2014 and at the same time she received Rs. 15,000/- on 18.01.2014 by NEFT and Rs. 450/- on 13.03.2014 and her deposit with M/s KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. showed zero balance since her deposit money of Rs. 200/- was refunded by cheque No. 485132 dated 10.03.2014 drawn on Axis Bank.
As regards the other client named Swapan Kumar Das having code No. C4120002 it reveals from his account ledger with KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. that his opening balance was Rs. 500/- not Rs. 120/- as claimed by the complainant and moreover Rs. 500/- was refunded on 15.03.2014 and as regards his deposit with KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. his deposit was Rs. 200/- and the same has been refunded by cheque No. 485133 dated 10.03.2014 drawn on Axis Bank.
As regards the deposit of 3rd client names Sabita Das having her client code No. C412003 her primary opening balance was Rs. 1,000/- with KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. out of which Rs. 450/- had been refunded on 13.03.2014 through online transfer and whereas Rs. 550/- was debited for DP account opening charge and as regards her deposit with M/s KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 200/- which has been refunded to the client vide cheque No. 485134 dated 10.03.2014 drawn on Axis bank.
But regarding the 4th client named Soumyadip Chakraborty having his client Code No. C4120004 has been continuing his trading and hence neither he nor the complainant is entitled to get any initial deposit and as regards her deposit with M/s KNB Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 200/- which has been refunded to the client vide Cheque No. 485135 dated 10.03.2014 drawn on Axis Bank. Considering all those documents as filed it is clear that the complainant is a habit of online trading of securities and commodities since she admitted that she was prevailing trading with BMA Wealth Creators Pvt. Ltd and she came before the KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. with a proposal that she is interested in trading business with the KNB as a remiser since she disclosed that she had good number of client and she gave proposal to the company that she will take commission from the company against the said business and no doubt one commercial term was executed and she has also opened her own demat account with M/s KNB Securities Pvt. Ltd. and received Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter Rs. 15,000/- which was eventually refunded but her very intention for online trading was there but the complainant did not give any reply to the question of the ops.
However after considering the materials it is found that op no.3 sent letter on behalf of KNB group of companies. But the document signed by the op no.3 is disputed one in view of the fact that op no.3 is no more in the service under the op no.2 and question of providing laptop or mobile or SIM card or dongle etc. is completely found baseless and there is no material of such plea. Considering all the above circumstances it is found that complainants are not a consumer and the agreement was for contract business that is not assured as seller or purchasers but as franchaise op no.2 that he is a partner of the said business. Moreover security is governed by SEBI and that is within the knowledge of the complainant because complainant had her past experience inbusiness of share trading with other share trading companies and moreover the share trading business is not a commodity and for which the present complaint is not tenable in the eye of law.
In the result, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against all the ops.
