DANTU SUBBARAYUDU Vs. ASST. MANAGER-IN-CHARGE M/S STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum returning his complaint on the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant had opened a D-mat account on 13.7.1999 with the opposite partyno.2. The complainant was allotted the securities account bearing No.200002364 and SHCIL DP id IN301022. The opposite party no.2 had sent monthly statement of holding of the 4000 shares of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co., Ltd., till the month of July 2005. From the month of August 2005 the opposite party no.2 had stopped sending the monthly statement of holding to the complainant. The complainant, in the month of September 2005, came to know that without his knowledge and from his account 3600 shares out of 4000 shares of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited worth of Rs.17,00,000/- were sold off. The efforts of the complainant to seek the relevant information proved futile. The complainant had got issued notice through his advocate on 1 7.10.2005 to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has got issued reply notice dated 19.10.2005 by denying any responsibility for the sold off share of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Ltd. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 conspired to misappropriate the amount.

(3.) The opposite party no.1 has resisted the claim denying the material averments of the complaint and contended that their Himayatnagar Branch received a requisition slip from the regular DIS booklet issued to the complainant. The duly filled annexure L (delivery instructions slip-DIS) was received for transfer of 3600 shares of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co., Ltd. After verifying the signature, ISIN details, shares and other shares are processed in three stages of maker checker and verification. The genuineness of DIS and signature was established and the complainant was also called to confirm the trade. The complainant himself is responsible in case the DIS issued to him landed in the hands of the perpetrator. The complaint was filed relating to the aspect of forgery of his signature. Appropriate criminal court is competent to try the matter. The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.