Complaint for getting to pay back the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation and cost etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opp.party’s scheme having name and style Religure Alliance Ltd. short named as R-Ally. At that time the complainant was also made believe that with the said company’s alliance and by depositing the said amount, the complainant could get share dealings with the different famous companies such as Hero Honda, Reliance Industries, Dena Bank etc. and there by the complainant could get a monthly income for his livelihood and that the complainant will get share dividend on his account. On 16..1.2007 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft. The complainant was issued with a trading user ID No. RG 9184 and CRN No.1000174528 through an intimation. The complainant was issued with daily statement of their deposit with different companies. The complainant was also made to believe that the share dividend would come on his account as and when the said companies derive progress out of their business. On 22.1. 2007 the complainant was intimated by the opp.parties that he would remit a further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for getting relief out of his earlier deposit. The complainant was not ready to remit the above said amount. Then the complainant was intimated through telephone by the opp.parties 1 to 3 that the above said amount was not remitted in time the complainant would lose his whole deposited amount. On 12.2.2007 the complainant visited the opp.parties 1 to 3 and enquired the details regarding his deposited amount. The complainant refused to accept their further demand and also demanded to pay back the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Then the complainant was intimated that the complainant would not deserve any amount covered by the deposit and he was not at all deserve to get any relief covered by the deposited amount. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opp.party 4th and 5th and also demanded the repayment of his deposited amount for having a redressal of his grievances. But the complainant was left with no remedy and hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2[d] of the CP. Act. The transaction between the complainant and the 5th opp.party is purely commercial in nature which includes purchasing and selling of shares through the opp.party. The allegation in para 1 of the complaint is not fully correct. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opp.part’s Scheme known as Religure Alliance Ltd. short named as R-Ally is not correct. There is no such scheme as Religure Alliance Ltd issued by this opp.party. The averments in para 2 are not within the knowledge of this opp.party and hence denied. The averments in para 3 to 7 are not correct. The complainant is a client of this opp.party with client code No.RG 9184 and utilizing the service of the opp.party for trading with NSE. and BSE. The complainant carried out trading through the opp.party for the period from 18.1.2007 to 26.2.2007. All the purchases and sales of sharers/futures were done as per the instruction and with the knowledge of the complainant
The averments in para 8 and 9 are false and hence denied. The opp.party has issued contract notes and trade confirmation statement to the complainant on daily basis and the same is acknowledged also. There was no deposit by the complainant and he has invested an amount of Rs. 1 lakh for purchase and sale of shares/securities through NSE and BSE. The averments in para 10 and 11 are not correct. The complainant entered the R-Ally scheme of this opp.party after knowing fully the risks and gains involved in the share business. There is absolutely no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this opp.party. The loss suffered by the complainant is a business loss and cannot be recovered from the opp.party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint with their cost. Points that would arise for consideration are:: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1 and D2 are marked. Points There is no dispute that the complainant has entrusted with the opp.parties a sum of Rs. One lakh for purchase and sale of shares. DW.1 has stated that as suggested by the complainant to him he purchased shares from NSE and BSE. He would further admit in cross examination at page4 that the dealings were done after crediting the amount in the complainants account. According to the opp.parties they have been authorized by the complainant as per Ext.P3 to purchase shares on credit and so they have purchased shares for the complainant on credit to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. But no document is produced to show the credit limit. No explanation is forthcoming for purchasing shares for such a huge sum when the investment of the complainant is only Rs. 1 lakh. There is absolutely nothing in the version that they purchased so much shares as they were very profitable. If those shares were so much profitable there is no explanation as to how the loss is sustained. If the complainant failed to pay the value of shares purchased on credit the opp.party can deny profit to the complaint when those shares are sold but they cannot adjust the investment for any loss they sustained on the sale of shares purchased on credit without the complainant’s consent. DW.1 would state in cross examination at Ext. P6 that the shares purchased on credit were sold with the consent of the complainant. But they have not produced any document. To use his own words “complainant sRy LrkilpA Kn\mlujgkr\rk Lfk T+2 Yedlgalnk T+2 sfxjuj]kr\rfjrkxx SgD <lwgl]juj}jh\h [Q] Th\h [A] DW.1 would further state in cross examination that if the complainant does not want to continue the business he can get back the deposit amount but in this case there was no balance amount after sale of shares. One is at a loss to understand as to how the entire amount invested by the complainant has been wiped of by sale of shares. It is possible that he may sustain loss. But after purchasing shares for a huge sum unauthorisedly which have not been proved to be profitable the adjustment of the entire deposit of the complainant to make good the loss is not proper. DW.1 has stated in cross examination in page 4 that after purchase of share intimation would be given to the complainant and that in this case necessary intimation has been given but no document was produced to establish that aspect. The non production of documents in this regard would lent support to the complainants case that he was not consulted. Nobody will purchase shares anticipating any loss. Every prudent brocker would but shares only when there is profit. Loss sustaining accidentally is possible . But in that event as already said the entire investment would not be lost. Here according to the opp.parties the account of the complainant has a zero balance. Purchasing of shares for an exhorbitant amount without the consent of the complainant and adjusting the investment of the complainant towards the credit is deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of repayment. The opp.parties are also directed to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2500/- towards costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 29th day of September 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – G. Ramachandran Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Document Draft Slip P2. – Intimation letter P3. – Slips [8 numbers] P4. – Balance sheet P5. –Delivery instruction by client List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Shibu.P List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Instructions D2. – Power of Attorney | 
