AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant is a Company incorporated under the Company''s Act, 1956. It has brought this action against the opposite party, which is also a Company within the meaning of the Company''s Act, 1956 claiming compensation for the sum of Rs. 17,35,681/- together with interest @ 24% per annum on the amounts of Rs. 3,00,861/- and Rs. 1,92,000/- from 1.4.1998.
THE case of the complainant is that it applied for a trading membership in the Capital Market Segment of the opposite party. THE application was accepted and the complainant was asked to obtain a trading membership on a provisional basis subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In pursuance of the offer made by the opposite party the complainant deposited a demand draft for Rs. 26.5 lakhs in favour of the opposite party. THE said money was accepted by the opposite party. THE complainant asked for extension of time to pay the second instalment, which was granted. THE complainant made a total deposit of Rs. 56.50 lakhs and forwarded a demand draft for Rs. 5,000/- as membership fees of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. According to the complainant the opposite party was required to provide the service to it so as to enable it to trade in securities on the Stock Exchange through Very Small Apperture Terminal (V.S.A.T.) and National Exchange for Automated Trading (NEAT) System. It has been alleged that the opposite party did not take any step for installation of V.S.A.T. and other equipment so as to enable it to trade on the Stock Exchange. The complainant pursued the matter but without any effect. According to the complainant by reason of delay in providing services the entire circumstances have changed and it was no longer viable or possible for it to start the business. The deposit of Rs. 56.50 lakhs is lying with the opposite party. The complainant decided to terminate its membership and asked for the release of deposited amount but his request for release of the amount was turned down. So he has filed this case.
The case is contested by the opposite party by filing a written objection wherein the maintainability of the case has been challenged. It has been stated that the complainant has failed to comply with all the requirements as specified by them and as such there is no question of rendering any service to the complainant. So it prayed for the dismissal of the case.
IT is not disputed that both the complainant and the opposite party are companies within the meaning of Company''s Act, 1956. The complainant wanted to become a member of the opposite party so as to enable him to trade in the Capital Market Segment of the opposite party. IT is apparent that he has made some deposit but all the requirements stipulated by the opposite party had not been complied with by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that this Commission should not adjudicate the dispute between the parties. He submits further that the questions raised in this case are complicated in nature and will take elaborate argument on both facts and law and possibly evidence. He has drawn attention to the decision of the National Commission dated 30th August, 2000 in Original Petition Number 66/2000 in the case of the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union Bank of India. The observation of the National Commission is quoted below : "The Consumer Protection Act was passed to provide quick justice without any Court fee to the consumers. IT was an additional remedy to all other remedies provided by various other Acts. The Company may come within the meaning of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act [Section 2(D)]. Service may also include banking [Section 2(o)]. But that does not mean that all commercial disputes between a Bank and a large Company must be decided by the Consumer Courts. No Court fee is payable in a Consumer Court so that people of modest means can seek expeditious justice in the Consumer Courts which were established to provide quick, easy and affordable justice to common people who could not otherwise enforce their rights before a Court of Law. A large number of complaints have been filed in Consumer Courts at all levels all over India and the arrears of the cases pending disposal are mounting every day. One of the reasons of such mounting arrears is that large commercial organizations like the complainant are invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts to settle their commercial disputes. There is no reason why the big Companies should abandon the remedy provided by the Civil Court and seek justice from the Consumer Courts by-passing the Civil Courts altogether. This will have the effect of clogging the wheels of justice in the Consumer Courts and common people are subjected to unreasonable delay in getting their cases heard."
In view of the ratio of decision as noted above and having considered the fact that complicated questions of fact and law would arise requiring lengthy hearing, we think it inappropriate to determine the matter. The complainant may take recourse to a proper Court to ventilate his grievances. We make it clear that we do not make any observation about the merits of the case. All the issues are left open for determination by a Court of proper jurisdiction. With this observation the case be disposed of. Complaint disposed of.