F.A.No.1543 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.58 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM CHITTOOR
Between

The Steel City Securities Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director, having office
No.49-52, 514, Shanthipuram, Shankar Math
Road, Visakhapatnam-016

Appellant/ opposite party No.2

A N D



1. Smt K.Kavitha W/o Sri K.Ashok Reddy
Aged about 42 years, Hindu, Housewife
Business, R/o 21-658, Poultry Complex
Near Sugar Factory, Chittoor


Respondent/complainant

2. Mr.V.S.S.Sathyanarayan Gupta
S/o Sri Sreekantaiah, aged about 45 yrs
Hindu, Business, R/o 11-359, Church Street
Chittoor, A.P.
Respondent/opposite party no.1



Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Ramgopal
Counsel for the respondent No.1 Sri K.Ashok Reddy
Counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri T.K.Sundara Kumar



QUORUM:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER



THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***



The appeal is filed by the opposite party no.2 in C.C.No.58 of 2006 passed by the District Forum, Chittoor.

The factual matrix of the complaint is that opposite party no.1 is an agent and sub-broker working under the control of opposite party no.2 and engaged in doing stock broking business in equity market, options and future at Chittoor. The complainant was holding transaction with the opposite parties under client A/c No.0350128 demat A/c No.10231478. The complainant held transaction in futures and options from 2.3.2002 to 8.6.2005 by paying a sum of Rs.70,000/- in three instalments towards margin money advance. The opposite parties fell due a sum of Rs.75,979/- till 8.6.2005 to the complainant as per the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 had issued contract slips (transaction particulars slips) for the transactions held from 2.3.2005 to 11.3.2005 without affixing any official signature therein. The complainant requested for several times to furnish the account particulars for the remaining transactions for which the account was not settled. A legal notice dated 30.8.2006 was got issued.

The opposite party no.2 had not given any reply nor had furnished the statement of account. The opposite partyno.2 bought 15 shares of Infosys Technologies in equity market on 13.6.2006 in the name of the complainant towards part adjustment for the pending account worth of Rs.40,285.72 paid, but the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not taken any steps for transfer of the same shares into the individual holding account of the complainant. Infosys Technologies had issued 1:1 bonus shares in the month of July 2006. Fifteen Shares had become 30 and their market price on 11.10.2006 was Rs.59,430/-. In the market general prevailing practice is that whenever there is time lapse occurs beyond reasonable cause for settlement of accounts, interest @ 24% per annum would be charged and collected. The complainant had suffered mentally, physically and economically due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties.

The opposite partyno.1 filed written version. The opposite party no.2 adopted the written version filed on behalf of the opposite partyno.1.

The opposite party no.1 had contended that the complainant had not done any business with them personally. Therefore, non-impleading of Saileela Securities through which the complainant entertained transactions is fatal to the complainant. The matter requires documentary and oral evidence to decide the running account, value of shares, futures and relevant dates of purchase and sale and also prevailing circumstances. Therefore, the matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings. The husband of the complainant but not the complainant had dealings with Saileela Securities. The opposite parties are not due a sum of Rs.75,979/- to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 had not issued any cheques for the share and futures already booked and for the business done by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. The complainant has filed the complaint at the behest of her husband who is an advocate in order to blackmail the opposite party no.1. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Therefore, prayed for dismissel of the complaint.

The respondent no.1 had filed documents, Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the appellant and respondent no.2 company no document was filed.

The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the appellant to transfer 15 (original) shares of Infosys Technologies an pay Rs.29,715/- being the value of 15 bonus shares of Infosys Technologies along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no.2 has filed appeal.

The complainant entered into a ‘Member Constituent Agreement’ dated 7.5.2004, with the opposite party no.2 to trade in NSE cash market segment though the appellant contends that the agreement was restricted to trade in NSE cash market segment only and does not entered its share business to transact the business in ‘Futures and Options (NSE F&O), apparently the appellant conducted transactions on behalf of the complainant in regard to the business in Futures and Options (NSE (F&O). The statement of accounts Ex.A6 evidences the transactions conducted by the opposite parties on behalf of the complainant relating to the business in Futures and Options.

The opposite party no.1 purchased 15 shares of Infosys Technologies for an amount ofRs.39,928.35. Ex.A5, contract note establish the transactions. The amount of Rs.39,928.35 has to be remitted by the complainant within two days from the date of transaction. The contract note, Ex.A5 indicates the due amount receivable by the opposite party no.1 with the complainant as Rs.40,285.72ps. The complainant had not filed any document evidencing payment of the amount, Rs.40,285.72ps to the opposite partyno.1. The version of the complainant is that the margin outstanding amount to the credit of her account is Rs.75,797/-.40ps out of which cost of 15 shares of Infosys Technologies, a sum of Rs.40,255.72 ps was adjusted leaving the balance due to be paid to her is Rs.35,693.65ps which amount she has claimed in the complaint.

The complainant has to establish that outstanding margin amount to the credit of her account is Rs.75,797.40. The complainant received Ex.A2, contract slips, Ex.A3 vouchers and Ex.A6, extract of account statement. Ex.A2 is a bunch of five contract slips bearing various bill nos issued in favour of the complainant. The scrip description is made as Satyam Computers and Hindustan Lever as also various dates such as credit dates, debit dates etc., are mentioned in Ex.A2. The two cash receipt vouchers under Exs.A3 are issued in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.5,000/- acknowledging receipt in cash and a cheque bearing No.465802 for Rs.25,000/-. The appellants denied authenticity of Exs.A2 and A3 citing the reasons that they do not bear the signatures of any authorized signatory pertaining to their establishment. The complainant had filed Ex.A4, Xerox copy of her passbook issued by Canara Bank in respect of S.B.A/c NO.12500 to show that an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid to the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

There is no denial of authenticity of the entries in Ex.A4. A cumulative effect of the entry in Ex.A4 as also the contents of Exs.A2 and A3 prove beyond any doubt the payment of Rs.70,000/- by the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 and 2. This fact is also established by the legal notice Ex.A1 wherein the complainant has categorically made a mention of payment of Rs.70,000/- in 3 instalments, Rs.5,000/- on 9.3.2005, Rs.25,000/- on 10.3.2005 and Rs.40,000/- on 29.3.2005. The complainant had also mentioned the issuance of Ex.A2 in the notice that she got issued through her counsel to the opposite parties no.1and 2 for which there has been no reply either from the opposite party no.1 or from opposite partyno.2. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.70,000/- was lying as the margin outstanding amount to the credit of the complainant’s account.

The complainant having established the fact of payment of Rs.70,000/- is entitled to the cost of 15 shares of Infosys Technologies. The margin outstanding amount is only Rs.70,000/- as stated in Ex.A1. However the complainant has claimed it to be Rs.75,979.40ps. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the margin outstanding amount of Rs.75,979.40ps. Therefore, the margin outstanding amount due to the complainant remains to be Rs.70,000/- and the cost of 15 shares of Infosys Technologies, Rs.40,285/- if adjusted from the margin outstanding amount, the amount due to the complainant comes to Rs.29,715/-. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the, appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.