DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Satbir Singh resident of House No.738, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

Trustline Investment Idea (T.I.I), S.C.O No.84-85, Sector 8C, Top Floor, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:            MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. Preet Pal Singh, authorized agent for the complainant.

Sh. Lalit Pandey, Advocate for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that the CC was an account holder of the OP and was continuing shares business in the stock market since 2007. On 18.10.2010, CC applied for 400 shares of Coal India Ltd., which was offered through IPO at cut off prices. The CC deposited Rs.98000/- by Cheque No. 522087 with the OP. The application form no. 2.5814384 was filled up for the said IPO dated 18.10.2010 by the internal staff of the CC. The sixteen digit account no. 1202420100142301 was also filled up by the staff of the OP, instead of the 16 digit account no. 1202420100157641, which actually belonged to the CC and this fact is established from the acknowledgement slip no. 12.5814384 computed no. 7417.

                The CC is aggrieved because of the wrong mentioning of his account no., the shares allotted to him were accounted into a third party account. On pursuing his case with the OP, OP refunded a total amount of Rs.86317.25P (46317.25P + 40000). But, however, Rs.11,682.75P still remain with the OP. CC having made representation with the OP failed to get any reply.

                CC has prayed for refund of balance amount of Rs.11,682.75P.  

2.              On notice, OP has filed their version/ written statement and have contested the claim of the CC. The OP has come up with a detail that the CC was their client having code no. 95506 and D.P. ID. No.1202420100157641. OP has also admitted that the CC applied for 400 shares of Coal India Ltd. on 18.10.10, through application no. 2 5814384. While filling up the form, the CC himself had filled up the wrong D.P. ID. No. as 1202420100142301, in place of the original one.

                OP has stated that a total of 199 shares of Coal India Ltd. were allotted to the client having D.P. ID. No. 1202420100142301, worth Rs.46318/- and the balance amount of Rs.51682/- was also credited into the account of the client one Mr. Satbir Singh Chaudhary having D.P. ID. No. 1202420100142301.  OP has alleged that when the CC came to know of his mistake, approached the OP to apprise them of the matter.  On the request of the CC, OP pursued the matter, which Satbir Singh Chaudhary, in whose account the said shares were allotted. OP has stated that it was on their persuasion that CC settled the matter with Satbir Singh Chaudhary, who promised to return the shares, as well as the excess amount credited into his account, but did not part with the profit generated on the value of the shares.

                OP has completely washed its hands of the present dispute and claim that the actual dispute is not with the OP, but with Satbir Singh Chaudhary with whom the CC himself had negotiated.  The OP prays for the dismissal of the present complaint against it. The version of the OP is supported by an affidavit of one Sh.Harinder Pal Singh, authorized person on behalf of the OP.

3.              Parties led their respective evidences.

4.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

[i]     The main contention of the CC is that the application form no. 2 5814384 which was filled up for the allotment of the IPO dated 18.10.10 was filled up by the internal staff of the company. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that it is the mistake by the CC, who while filling up the application form had mentioned the incorrect           DP ID. No. 1202420100142301, in place of 1202420100157641.   However, there is no evidence from the side of the OP to prove their version.

[ii]    OP has admitted to the fact that CC is their client and he has been allotted DP I.D. No. 1202420100157641 and also has a client code no. 95506. The same is mentioned specifically in para 2 of their version. From the above fact, it is clear that the identity of different clients is a matter of record of the OP alone.  Two different customers of the similar name with different I.D. numbers, exist, is also proved and the same can be ascertained from the record of the OP only. We believe that the CC cannot have the knowledge as to how many persons of the same name, but with different ID’s exist in the records of OP i.e. to say that the CC could not have gained information of the ID No. of Satbir Singh Chaudhary, who shares his name with the CC, the ID which was printed or mentioned in the application form processed by the OP could only come from the OP alone. Meaning thereby, that the contentions of the CC with regard to the filling up of the form by the internal staff of the OP, is proved right.

[iii]   Another fact, which needs to be understood, is that the identity of the person, in whose account, the said shares were allotted, could not be revealed by the OP, which they did. Though the CC may have interacted with Satbir Singh Chaudhary on his own in order to get his money back, but the address of Satbir Singh Chaudhary was definitely provided by the OP, because he too was an account holder of the OP.  It is wrong on the part of the OP to wash away their hands of their responsibility of getting the money back from Satbir Singh Chaudhary.  However, the money that was refunded to the CC by Satbir Singh Chaudhary as claimed by the OP in lieu of the excess amount of Rs.51682.25P, is short by Rs.11,682.25P. We believe that the CC is very much right in his demand of remaining amount of Rs.11,682.25P from the OP, because there was no connection of the CC with Satbir Singh Chaudhary. OP has failed to bring on record the account from which Rs.40,000/- through a Cheque No. 710150 on 03.01.2011 as per the bank statement of the CC annexed with the complaint, was paid. The version of the OP is silent about the identity of this Cheque, though they have vaguely stated that the same has been paid by Satbir Singh Chaudhary on demand of the CC. In the absence of any proof from the side of the OP, the version of the OP, qua this fact, can not be believed.  

5.              In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.11,682.25P, along with interest @9% per annum from 03.01.2011, till its realization. The OP is further saddled with Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs.

6.              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, OP shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, except for litigation expenses.  

7.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14^th November 2011.                                                                   

                     Sd/-            

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)