N.V. Sriram vs Branch Head, Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Vijayawada (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 925 of 2008 - Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Vs. Ch. N.V. Sriram by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was trading in shares through the OP/respondent for the last two years preceding the date of the complaint. By 8.11.2006, complainant had 43 MRF shares in his Demat account. Inspite of repeated requests, shares were not transferred in complainant ''s Demat account. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that due to clerical mistake, MRF shares were transferred in complainant ''s trading account and when mistake was realized, OP intimated to the complainant and re -transferred 40 MRF shares to its common pool account and denied any deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to transfer 40 MRF shares and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1000/ - as cost. Appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and direction to transfer 40 MRF shares was set aside and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition has been filed. Petitioner did not appear even after service.

HEARD learned Counsel for the respondent and perused record.

LEARNED State Commission rightly observed as under: 11. ''''Buying and selling statement of complainant ''s trading account of the respondent issued by the Notational Stock Exchange would show that the respondent had not purchased any MRF shares. The appellant company had transferred back 43 (40) MRF shares from the respondent ''s account to its common pool account in four transactions,11 shares on 16th October,2006 through settlement number 2006196, 15 shares on 18th October,2006 through settlement number 2006198, 8 shares on 19th October,2006 through settlement number 2006199,and 06 shares on 2nd November,2006 through settlement number 2006208.The failure on the part of the appellant company to give reply ipso facto does not entitle the respondent to the 40 MRF shares. The respondent had failed to show that he had purchased the 40 MRF shares from a certain company or issued instructions to the appellant company to purchase the shares. Any transaction in this regard must be in consonance with the statement of account of the respondent issued by the National Stock Exchange. The respondent is not entitled to the 40 MRF shares in question ''''.

Perusal of record makes it abundantly clear that complainant never purchased MRF shares and by mistake shares were transferred from the common pool of OP to complainant ''s trading account and after intimation to the complainant, shares were re -transferred by OP in its common pool account from complainant ''s trading account.

COMPLAINANT failed to lead any evidence to prove that he ever purchased MRF shares which were transferred in his trading account. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.