- (1.) Heard counsel in detail.
(2.) The writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the State Commission, confirming the order of the District Forum.
(3.) The first petitioner is a Sub-broker, Petitioner No.2 is a director of the company. Before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the respondent complained of deficiency in service by the Company. According to the complainant, the first petitioner before us, a sub-broker, in spite of specific instructions given by her and in spite of a sum of Rs.2,21,297/- being available with it, did not purchase 500 shares in Larsen & Toubro and transfer it to her D-mat account and that only later, it purchased 500 shares in two instalments and transferred the same to her D-mat account. This was against specific instructions. The broker had spent only Rs.1,05,395/- for purchase of the 500 shares at a later point of time and hence a sum of Rs.1,15,902/- out of the sum of Rs.2,21,297/- belonging to her, remained with the broker and the same had not been returned to her. She submitted that the failure to purchase the shares as instructed by her and to transfer it to her D-mat account amounted to deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and she was entitled to compensation in terms of that Act. She actually claimed the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,15,902/- with interest thereon. The petitioner resisted the claim. One of its main contentions was that it had purchased the shares on the day as instructed but could not transfer it to the D-mat account of the consumer, since the number of the D-mat account of the customer was not available with the petitioner and that there was no deficiency in service which would enable the claimant to approach the Consumer Redressal Forum. The District forum, on a consideration of the available materials, came to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner that it did not have the number of the D-mat account of the consumer, was not believable as the materials disclosed that it was very much aware of that number. The District Forum further found that the petitioner had failed to show that 500 shares in Larsen & Toubro were purchased on 14-1-2000, the date on which it was instructed by her to purchase and the shares were purchased in two instalments, one instalment on 8-5-2000 and the other on 30-5-2000. It was also found that the amount of Rs.2,21,297/- belonging to the Consumer was available with the petitioner for purchase of 500 shares and the petitioner had only spent Rs.1,05,395/ - for purchasing the shares and hence, the petitioner was liable to return a sum of Rs.1,15,902/-, the sum unutilized, out of the sum of Rs.2,21,297/-, remaining with the petitioner. The District Forum, therefore, directed the petitioner to return that sum with interest thereon at 18% per annum.;