Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Complaint No. 289/2008 delivered on 4th June, 2010, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, the original Complainant has filed this appeal. (2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant had D-mat Account with the Opposite Party No.1 – Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd. which is broker, who used to enter into transaction of sale and purchase of shares on receipt of consideration from the Complainant and he used to get brokerage of 0.2%, i.e. 20 paise per Rs.100/-. The Opposite Party No.2 is the registered office of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party alleging that regular brokerage was made at an enhanced rate and more than at agreed rate, sale of Kotak Mahindra shares done by Opposite Party was without authority from the Complainant, there was sale of 100 shares of M.T.N.L. without collecting authority from the Complainant. The Opposite Party did not accept instruction slip regarding sale of 50 shares of HDFC Bank. Sale of 8 share of Ad-lab Films without authority, sale of 60 shares of Nestle Limited was made, but, there was short credit and there was further sale of 50 shares of Infosys Technologies Ltd. and there was short credit. Thus, according to Complainant he sustained financial loss due to above acts on the part of the Opposite Party and he claimed recovery of the sum of Rs.24,206.74 ps. towards loss caused to the Complainant, Rs.7,000/- towards legal and miscellaneous expenses, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, total claim was filed for Rs.46,206.74. (3) Opposite Party - Broker filed written statement and contested the complaint. Opposite Party denied allegations of deficiency in service on its part. Opposite Party pleaded that all the transactions were made as per directions of the Complainant and no deficiency in service of any kind had been done by them. The Opposite Party also took-up a plea that Complainant had approached with a complaint to Investors Grievances Redressal Committee (IGRC), formed under the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. for such type of complaint. Upon hearing both sides, the Complainant’s grievance was dismissed by Investors Grievances Redressal Committee. Complainant had not approached before statutory arbitral tribunal provided under the bye-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange. According to Opposite Party that the complaint is absolutely false and he is trying to recover the amount which he is not entitled from the Opposite Party. (4) On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below discussed in detailed various transactions and came to the conclusion that Complainant had already approached IGRC, the said Committee had called for explanation from Opposite Party – Broker which he tendered. Said Committee did not find any substance alleged by Complainant. The Committee further noted in its order that Complainant had made allegations regarding only one sale transaction of 8 shares of Ad-lab Films and Complainant did not refer to other transactions which he had referred to in the present complaint. So, Forum below came to the conclusion that conduct on the part of the Complainant militated to his allegations made in the complaint and therefore, Forum below returned finding that Complainant had failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint, this appeal has been filed by original Complainant. (5) We heard submissions of Appellant in person and Advocate Mr.Jayesh Vyas, Advocate, proxy for Mr.Vipul Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent. (6) We are finding that there is no substance in the appeal. The Complainant was dealing with shares to earn profit, so this was the commercial transaction of the Complainant and for such transaction the complaint should not have been filed in the Forum itself. Moreover, we are finding that Forum below in paragraph nos. 9 to 15 discussed each and every transaction for which allegation was made by the Complainant in his complaint and Forum below gave categorical finding that there was no substance in the complaint and that brokerage charged by the Broker was rightly charged. Government levies were also rightly imposed in respect of said transaction. The Forum below also noted that dealing with sale of 50 shares of H.D.F.C Bank could not be done since Complainant failed to deliver instruction slip of 50 shares within prescribed time limit and therefore, shares were sold and loss was debited to Complainant’s account. The Broker also added that Complainant had tried to deliver shares from third party account which was not in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Bombay Stock Exchange, so delivery of shares was not accepted by the Broker. Thus, we are finding that each and every transaction complained of by the Complainant had been thoroughly discussed by the Forum below and then Forum below came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint. (7) What is pertinent to note is the fact that Complainant had approached internal grievance committee appointed by Bombay Stock Exchange as per its Rules and Regulations. Said internal Grievance Committee had upon hearing both sides dismissed the Complainant’s grievance and thereafter Forum below noted that Complainant did not approach statutory arbitral tribunal provided under the bye-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange. In the circumstances, taking all these facts into account the Forum below held that Complainant had not made out case of deficiency in service for filing complaint and therefore, it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. (8) Upon hearing original Complainant and Advocate for the Respondent, we are finding that order passed by the Forum below, in the circumstances is appearing to be just and proper and it is sustainable in law. We are finding no substances in appeal filed by the original Complainant. As such, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties free of costs. | 
