CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member

    Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                

CC No.205/11

                                                       Wednesday the 30^th day of May, 2012.

 

Petitioner                                                  : Dr.Sobha P.S,

                                                                  Valliyedathu House,

                                                                   Panacheppally,

                                                                   Kanjirappally now residing at

                                                                   Valuchira House,

                                                                    Malikakadavu PO.

                                                                    Pathamuttam, Kottayam.  

 

                                                             Vs.

 

Opposite party                                         : M/s. UAE Xchange Ltd.,

                                                                   2^nd Floor Habeed Tower

                                                                   Opposite Maharajas College Ground

                                                                    Ernakulam.

                                                                 2) Mr. Jayasooryan Joseph

                                                                     Branch Manager, UAE Xchange

                                                                     2^nd Floor, PMJ Complex

                                                                     MC Road, Changanachery-2

                                                                 3) Mrs.Deepa Nair,

                                                                     Junior Manager,

                                                                     UAE Xchange, 2^nd Floor,

                                                                     PMJ Complex

                                                                     MC Road, Changanachery-2

                                                                     (Adv.S.Renjith)

 

 

 

            The case of the complainant presented on 5-8-11 is as follows.

            She had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party on

19-12-2009. At the time of deposit the opposite parties offered to return the amount with 12% interest as and when demanded the amount. Thereafter due to some urgency the complainant approached the opposite parties for refund the money in December 2010. In December 2010 when the complainant contacted the opposite parties, she was surprised to hear that the opposite parties have done some business with the said amount and the amount standing to the credit of the complainant’s account was only Rs.7000/-. The opposite parties persuaded the complainant to make further deposit of Rs.25,000/- more to patch up the losses by interesting more amount in the business. The opposite parties offered to return the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest as promised by the end of April 2011. Subsequently the complainant approached the opposite parties for the amount they postponing the repayment saying lame excuses. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

            The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party is not a financial institution and is not accepting any deposit at all in any form. Hence there is no question of making any deposit by the complainant or anybody else at all. The services provided by the opposite parties are foreign exchange, money transfer, internet trading, share trading, depository services, mutual funds,   IPO’s, PAN services etc. It is true that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with the intention of opening a trading account (Depository Participant Account) for the purpose of purchase of shares. Thereafter she started her share trading using her trading account by purchase and sale of shares at the rates prevailing in the stock market during the relevant time of transactions. Nobody is capable making any assured returns at all. The opening of trading account requires submission of statutory forms and execution of various agreements, execution of power of attorneys and submission of application forms. They are all printed materials containing all terms and conditions. The client can even do the trading directly using the online trading facility provided by the opposite parties by logging into the clients account. So in all aspects the service provided by the opposite party is totally transparent and foolproof. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B4 series.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence of both sides. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties not refund the deposited amount even after repeated demands made by him. According to her the amount was deposited as fixed deposit. But the opposite parties had taken a contention that the complainant had deposited the amount for the purpose of share trading. According to the opposite parties the amount was using for share marketing business. Moreover the opposite parties have taken a contention that the complainant voluntarily signed papers for the share trading business. At the same time the complainant submits that she never deposited the amount for the purpose of share trading. Admittedly the opposite parties had done share trading business for and on behalf of the complainant. Ultimately the share trading business was loss and on account of the loss the complainant’s deposited amount was lost. However the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant was participated in share business through the opposite party or herself. The complainant’s case is that she had deposited the amount as fixed deposit. From the available evidence and documents it can be seen that the complainant had deposit the amount as fixed deposit. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment to the complainant and pay Rs.1500/- as cost of these proceedings.

            The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

   

 

Ext.A1-is the copy of ID details.

Ext.A2-is the copy of Exposure report

Ext.A3-is the copy of lawyer notice dtd 28-6-11

Ext.A4-is the postal receipt and AD card

Ext.A5-is CD.

Ext.B1-is the copy of individual client registration form

Ext.B2-is the copy of application for opening a demat account

Ext.B3-is the copy of consolidate client ledger

Ext.B4(series) is the copy of receipts of courier services.

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.