JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Vikram Nair against the Respondent- The Branch Manager, Karvy Broking Stock Ltd., Raichur The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the depository account holder with the Respondent No-1 vide Account No. 11779455. The complainant is holding shares worth of Rs. 1,14,985.10/- in the depository account of Respondent Company and the complainant has already paid life time maintenance charges. That in-spite of payment of the life time maintenance charges to the Respondent, the Respondent has demanded time and again over phone to the complainant and asked for payment of maintenance charges and also issued a bill dt. 25-05-09 towards maintenance charges and through that bill the Respondent has threatened the complainant stating that, if the complainant fails to pay the maintenance charges the shares of the complainant will be sold and will recover the outstanding maintenance charges out of the sale of shares. Though the complainant informed the Respondent in detail about the payment of the maintenance charges, the Respondent has never cared and demanded for payment of life time maintenance charges and caused lot of mental agony, harassment and thereby caused unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to against the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent along with cost. 2. The Respondent appeared in person and filed written statement contending that there is no provision of collecting the life time maintenance charges in demat account and the Respondent never received such amount from the complainant. As per the agreed terms and conditions the complainant has to pay annual maintenance charges every year to the Respondent. The Respondent in order to collect the maintenance charges and as per the procedure sent the bill or letter to the complainant as usual which will be issued against all the clients, the complainant has falsely termed it as an harassment etc., Hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in the complainants demat account and the Respondent is not liable/responsible to pay any compensation. Further it is contended that as per the terms of the agreement executed by the complainant at the time of opening the demat account all or any disputes shall refer to the arbitrator, hence the cause of action will not arise as mentioned by the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (5) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. In-rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn-affidavit of one Rajeev, the Manager of Respondent Company, Raichur. The Respondent has not filed any documents. Hence no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondent. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Respondent, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that, the complainant is the depository account holder with the Respondent No-1 vide Account No. 11779455 and he is holding shares worth of Rs. 1,14,985.10/- in the depository account of Respondent Company, the Respondent has demanded the complainant and asked for payment of maintenance charges and also issued a bill dt. 25-05-09 in this regard. 7. The complainant has produced in all (5) documents namely (1) Photo Copy of the letter dt. 13-03-07 with served postal acknowledgement marked at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-1(a), (2) Photo copy of letter dt. 16-03-07 marked at Ex.P-2, (3) Photo Copy of letter dt. 16-03-07 with served postal acknowledgement marked at Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-3(a), (4) Photo copy of the letter dt. 25-05-09 marked at Ex.P-4, and Photo copy of holding statement 31-05-09 marked at Ex.P-5. 8. The Ex.P-4 letter dt. 25-05-09 clearly speaks that the Respondent has got issued a bill for the period from 24-04-09 to 25-05-09 in respect of maintenance charges to the complainant. From this we can find that the Respondent has also fixed the time limit for payment of the same as 30-06-09 and also discloses that if the complainant fails to pay on or before 30-06-09 it will attract penal interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Further the said Ex.P-4 discloses that if any payment has already been paid, then if asked to provide the payment details. After receipt of the said Ex.P-4 the complainant has written a letter to the Respondent Company of Bangalore on 13-02-07 which is marked at Ex.P-1 and another letter dt. 26-03-07 at Ex.P-3 through which he has clearly informed about the payment of the life time maintenance charges and explained about the date of payment, amount of payment and he has also given details about the cheque through which he has made payment and for what purpose he has issued the said cheque. But in-spite of that the Respondent has denied every thing and contended in his written version that the complainant has not paid any maintenance charges and for which they have got issued a bill dt. 25-05-09. This is nothing but an negligence on the part of the Respondent because the Respondent office of Bangalore nor the Raichur office, has made any efforts to clarify things in-respect of payment of the maintenance charges by the complainant. 9. During the course of enquiry, the Respondent has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. In the said affidavit at Para-3, the Manager by name Rajeev has clearly admits that the complainant is having demat account with the Respondent Company and he is the life time member/holder by paying life time maintenance charges, same has been accepted and considered by the Respondent Company. Therefore the complainant need not pay any more money in future. In Para-4 of the said affidavit, he has deposited that due to over sight and under mis-conception crept in maintaining the statement etc., over the computer, it sent the letter to the complainant by demanding for payment of annual maintenance charges for making transactions with regard to shares etc., This admission made by the Respondent in the affidavit itself would go to shows that there is negligence on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent has got lot of information abut the account holders and their share transactions, payment and dues. The Respondent Company is a share broking agent who is having advanced technology in order to maintain the accounts of their customers. Under such circumstances they cannot blindly look into the transactions of the account holders and make demand for the charges etc., here in this case the Respondent has got opportunity to verify things earlier to demanding the maintenance charges against the complainant. But they have not done so, after receipt of the Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 they have not made any efforts to clarify things and even after receipt of the notice from the Forum, for his appearance in this case, the Respondent has not tried to rectify their mistakes at any stage of the request of the complainant. But finally they come with the true facts through their affidavit-evidence by admitting their mistakes. That itself is nothing but a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent cannot escape from its responsibility by saying that, it happened due to over sight or under mis-conception crept in maintaining the statement etc., Under such circumstances we hold that there is negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent, hence we find deficiency in service on the part of Respondent as contended by the complainant, therefore we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent. So Point No-1 is answered in the Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, unfair trade practice, damages etc., No doubt there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent. But the claim of the complainant in this regard is excessive and exorbitant one. Therefore in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and Rs. 3,000/- deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation etc., The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 05-10-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
