BASAPPA vs Renuka S. Pujari (Branch Incharge) Select Stock Brokers Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short).

THE parties in this revision petition were complainant and opposite parties respectively in the same order before the District Forum. THE complainant opened a trading account with OP-1 branch of OP-2 company. According to the complainant, OP-1 failed to furnish statement of holdings account including opening and closing position of his holdings in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. On verification, the complainant came to know that OP-1 has transferred his shares in favour of its employee by name Shankaragouda Balasaheb Desai and his father Balasaheb Desai through off-market transfer. Complainant requested OP-3 to instruct OP-2 to restore the above shares to his accounts. According to the complainant, the share transfers in favour of Desai by OP-2 was an illegal and arbitrary act which resulted in the complainant suffering both monetary loss and mental agony. Since his repeated requests to the OPs to set the position right did not get any positive response, he was compelled to approach the District Forum with a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On appearance, OPs through their respective versions denied the allegations of the complainant. Besides, questioning the jurisdiction of the District Forum because of existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the OPs submitted that the complainant and aforesaid Shankaragouda Desai in collusion with one another had transferred the aforesaid shares for which the OPs could not be blamed. According to OP-2, the shares in question were transferred as per the instructions of the complainant himself and in terms of the conditions of the agreement between the parties. However, when the OPs came to know about the alleged misappropriation, cheating, falsification of accounts, they have lodged a complaint against the aforesaid Shankaagouda Desai and the same is under investigation. In the circumstances, Shankaragouda Desai would be a proper and necessary party to the dispute in question but the complainant failed to add him as a party in the present complaint. According to the OPs the complainant and Shankaragouda Desai being relatives had joined hands with each other. It was contended that the OP-2 had transferred the shares in question as per the delivery instructions issued by the complainant himself and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Averments were made by the parties and affidavit evidence alongwith other documents were filed before the District Forum. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 11.3.2010. The State Commission also held the same view and dismissed the appeal of the complainant against the order of the District Forum and hence the present revision petition.

NONE has appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of admission hearing. However, the petitioner/complainant has sent an application in which it has been prayed that the revision petition may be considered by the Commission. We have, therefore, gone through the revision petition including the orders of the fora below. It is to be noted that based on the documents and affidavit evidence, both the fora below have returned their concurrent finding of facts against the complainant while dismissing his complaint. Besides this, we have also noted that the aforesaid Shankaragouda Desai, who is a relative of the complainant, has not been made a party to the dispute in spite of the fact that the OPs have filed a complaint against him regarding misappropriation, cheating and falsification of accounts. The concurrent dismissal of the complaint by fora below is based on finding of facts and there are no other legal issues involved in the matter. The State Commission vide its impugned order has considered related aspects of the dispute carefully while dismissing the appeal of the complainant. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. There is, therefore, no case for our interference with it under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.