INDUSIND BANK LTD. Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2006-5-1
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 18,2006

INDUSIND BANK LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIMAL CHANDRA GROVER V. BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL NARULA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIMACHAL PRADESH AND PATIALA [REFERRED TO]
J S CHAUHAN VS. DAINIK BHASKER NEWS PAPER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

T.P.GUPTA,MEMBER - (1.)THESE appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed by the learned District Forum. As the facts of both these appeals are identical and the subject -matter and issues involved therein are same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts of Appeal No. 732/04 -IndusInd Bank Ltd. v. Surendra Kr. Jain:
(2.)THE facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant had opened an Over Draft (O.D.) account in the appellant -bank of 29.9.2000. On the request of the respondent -complainant, appellant -bank sanctioned to him an overdraft limit of Rs. 17.50 lac against pledge of shares of different companies, keeping margin of 35% and the parties executed an agreement -cum -pledge -cum -guarantee. According to the complainant, he informed the appellant -bank on 2.1.2001 that he does not want that any of his old economy shares, particularly of pharmaceuticals, should be sold for which a specific note may be made. Subsequently, the appellants informed the complainant on 12th April, 2001 that they are increasing the margin from 35% to 60% of the share value and advised the complainant either to deposit the shortfall in the account or pledge additional shares within 24 hrs. failing which the pledged shares might be sold. When the complainant approached the bank on 11.5.2001, he came to know that the appellants have already sold his shares, including the shares of pharmaceuticals. The appellants have even sold his shares over and above the margin amount. The complainant alleged that because of the acts of the appellants, he had sustained a loss of Rs. 10,44,436.80. As a result of this, the complainant had to sell his house and fell sick. In addition to this, the complainant alleged that he had given 200 shares of Global Telesystems Ltd. for demat to the appellant in February 2000 which were lost by the bank and the duplicate shares were given in October, 2000. In this intervening period the price of these shares came down from Rs. 2,600 to Rs. 500 -600 per share. On this account, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 4,82,600. The complainant filed a complaint in the Forum below demanding total damages amounting to Rs. 19,68,474.80 from the appellants.
(3.)AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and awarded damages on account of sale of shares of the complainant but dismissed the claiming relating to demat of shares.
We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the material on record. We are in general agreement with the views expressed by the learned District Forum.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.