DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.10/22

Ashok Kumar Goel

1^st Floor, 110-A/4, Krishna Nagar

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029.                                                         .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

Yes  Securities (India) Ltd.

48, Nyaya Marg, Chankyapuri

New Delhi-110021.                                                        ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution: 03.02.2022

Date of Order        : 31.03.2023

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has made a request to pass an award directing Yes Securities (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to refund the subscription of Rs.6,02,980/- (ii) pay compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- (iii) interest @24% per annum till refund and compensation is paid (iv) cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (v) return the subscription of Rs.1,33,045/- (vi) cost of Rs.10,000/- to be levied on OP for delaying proceedings (vii) direction to OP not to charge for any sale or purchase of shares etc.

1. It is stated that the complainant subscribed to plan Code V 13 for trading in shares by paying Rs.5,90,000/- on the assurance of the OP that services would be provided. The plan is annexed as Annexure-2. It is the case of the complainant that he was told on phone that plan is for 10 years and signatures were obtained in hurry but the plan was for 1 year.

2.  It is stated by the complainant that OP had ensured  that the following services will be provided

1. Research on e-mail
2. Research on SMS
3. Call & trade
4. Dedicated dealer
5. Call with expert
6. Portfolio update
7. Stock specific Research

3. It is further stated by the complainant that the plan was extended on 11.11.2020 for 3 years, the  plan code being SVSP 32 for an amount Rs. 1,33,045/-.  The following services were to be included in the package

1. Research on e-mail
2. Research on SMS
3. Call & trade
4. Dedicated dealer

Though OP extended the Plan on 11.11.2020 but the OP did not provide services. It is stated that OP is deficient in its service and is unfair. 

4. It is also stated that the other service provider i.e. IIFL Securities are providing Delivery Brokerage Trading Services free of cost.  Likewise, OP should provide trading services free of cost and should refund the subscription of Rs.6,02,980/- and earlier subscription of Rs.1,33,045/- should also be refunded.

5. It is also stated that the OP had utilised in trading till 05.07.2021 only 5.98% of the subscription of Rs.12,980/- and at this rate, the subscription paid of Rs.6,02,980/- shall be utilised in more than 450 years.  So the subscription of Rs. 6,02,980/- be refunded.

6. The OP has not provided any mechanism to address the grievances hence are liable for violating Section 2(9)(iv) – the right to be heard.

Notice was issued to the OP which was duly received by the OP and  the complaint copy was collected  on 19.05.2022 but OP did not file any reply therefore the OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.07.2022.

This Commission has gone through the material available on record and it is seen that the complainant has availed of the services of the OP for the first time on 08.11.2019 for a period of one year, thereafter the same was renewed on 11.11.2020 for a period of three years. Though the complainant has stated in the complaint that he is an old man, it is evident from the material that the complainant is a well-informed, well-read person who has availed of some other agencies also other than the OP for trading in shares.

 It is also seen from the record that the both the plans availed of by the complainant were different in their services. Apart from one, the complainant has not placed on record any document on record to show that he had written to the OP complaining of the services of the OP and it is also not clear as to why the complainant would avail the services of the OP in subsequent year after being dissatisfied with their services in the earlier year.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.