Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)      Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 19.11.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay the value of the shares sold by the opposite parties being Rs. 10,01,000/- with 18% interest from 28.12.2007 till date.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, loss harassment and mental tension.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he had purchased 1400 share of Indian Oil Corporation. On 27.12.2007 opposite party who is a share broker approached him and requested the complainant to sale the shares through him (opposite party) and assured him to give good return after selling the shares through him. Complainant trusted his word as he was in the need of money.

It has been further asserted by the complainant that on 28.12.2007 the opposite party informed the complainant that he had purchased all his shares @ Rs. 715/- per share and he will pay the price of Rs. 715/- x 1400 i.e. Rs. 10,01,000/- within a week.

The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party did not keep his word despite repeated request and reminders by the complainant but the opposite party had assured the complainant that he will pay the amount with interest of 15% but the opposite party has not pay the aforesaid amount deliberately putting the complainant in dire need of money which has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant thereafter gave a legal notice to the opposite party which was replied and the opposite party denied his liability and made false and concocted statement. Thereafter the complainant has lodged criminal case being criminal case no. 165/11 which is pending.

On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed stating therein that he is an unauthorized share broker by SEBI INDIA. It has been further asserted that the complainant approached in 2007 and expressed his willingness to sell his 1400 shares of Indian Oil Corporation and thereafter the opposite party has sold 1400 Indian Oil Corporation shares on 27.12.2007 at the total cost of Rs. 9,85,143.95/-. At the same time the ledger debit of the complainant was Rs. 55,427.73/- and later on i.e. on 31.12.2007 the complainant has purchased 1500 shares of Indian Oil Corporation with total cost of Rs. 11,53,713.82/-.

It has been further asserted by the opposite party that on 31.12.2007 the total ledger debit of the complainant amounted to Rs. -2,27,441.73/- and from that time the opposite party had demanded his dues of Rs. 2,27,441.73/- from the complainant. The complainant did not pay the aforesaid amount and further instructed the opposite party to adjust his dues after selling his Indian Oil Corporation shares with equal value. Thereafter opposite party sold his 700 shares of Indian Oil Corporation on 29.07.2008 and adjusted his dues and thereafter remaining 800 shares were transferred in the account of complainant on 14.06.2008.

It has been further stated that complainant had also obtained bonus for the 800 shares of Indian Oil Corporation. It is also stated that the complainant sold 200 shares of Indian Oil Corporation on 28.05.2010 and 800 Indian Oil Corporation shares on 07.06.2010 and 300 Indian Oil Corporation shares on 28.07.2010 as will appear from annexure – 1 of written statement. The aforesaid transaction of 1500 Indian Oil Corporation shares were accepted by the complainant in his legal notice dated 25.09.2010 but the complainant has filed this case concealing the aforesaid fact.

It has been also stated that complainant has filed false criminal case i.e. C.C. 165(c) 2011 which was dismissed on 14.08.2013.

The complainant has not filed rejoinder to the written statement filed the opposite party. In whole of the complaint petition the complainant has not even whispered that he has purchased the share for his livelihood. Apart from it, from complaint as well as written statement it is crystal clear that the complainant has asserted that his amount has not been paid while the opposite party has asserted that he had sold the remaining share at the instruction of the complainant and after realizing his dues he has transferred the remaining shares in account of complainant. Thus, disputed fact is involved in this case.

It goes without saying that dispute relating to shares between the parties are decided by mechanism created by SEBI. The complainant ought to have approach to SEBI for redressal of his grievance.

It further transpires that both parties are involved in criminal litigation for the same grievance directly or indirectly.

We do not find any merit in this case for the reason stated above.

However, the complainant is at liberty to approach SEBI or Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.

For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.

                                       Member                                 Member(F)                      President