- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 23.7.1999 in Complaint No. 739/96 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for convenience) directing that the appellant shall pay to the complainant total amount of Rs. 26,672/ - with interest @ 18% p.a. besides cost of the complaint.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that opposite party/appellant deals in shares and makes purchase and sale of shares on behalf of various customers. The complainant also used to avail of the services of appellant. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent paid to the appellant the amounts as detailed below for the purchase of shares: Sl. No. Amount Date of payment Name of the company (1) Rs. 6,097/ - 6.3.1995 L.M.L. (50 shares) (2) Rs. 4,305/ - 20.3.1995 DCM Toyota (50 shares) (3) Rs. 12,940/ - 10.4.1995 L&T (50 shares) (4) Rs. 6,660/ - 30.3.1995 NEPC (200 shares)
(3.) THE complainant averred in the complaint that though the amount as above for purchase of shares was given by him to the appellant, yet out of 200 shares of NEPC, only 100 shares were delivered to him by the appellant, while 50 shares of LML and 50 shares of L&T were not delivered to him by the appellant. Though the appellant handed over the complainant/respondent 50 shares of DCM Toyota, yet the said shares could not be transferred in favour of the complainant/respondent. Hence service rendered by the appellant as above was alleged to be deficient and the complainant claimed that direction be given to the appellant that the shares be delivered to him or the appellant be directed to refund the above amount. The complaint was resisted by the appellant. It was averred that one Rajendra Pradhan opened 3 accounts with the appellant for purchase and sale of shares. One of the such account was in the name of the complainant/respondent. While the other two accounts were in the name of Rajendra Pradhan and one Sanjay. It was further averred that Rajendra Pradhan used to collect the shares for and on behalf of the three account holders and there was no direct dealing of the appellant with the complainant. It was further averred that as there were outstanding dues in the account of Rajendra Pradhan and Sanjay, therefore, some shares purchased on behalf of the complainant/respondent were not delivered to him. It was averred that the shares of DCM Toyota were returned by the Registrar of the company as the signature of the seller of the said shares did not tally and that appellant was ready and willing to get the name of the complainant/respondent transferred, after removal of objections raised by the Registrar; in case these share certificates are handed over by the complainant to the appellant. It was, therefore, averred that there was no deficiency in service by the appellant that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.;