SURAKSHA SANKOOL, AHMEDABAD vs NITIN B. CHOKSHI SHARE And STOCK BROKER, AHMEDABAD STOCK EXCHANGE

BY way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for following reliefs essentially for complainant No. 2 who would be hereinafter referred to as the complainant: "It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon''ble State Commission may be pleased to direct the opposite party No. 1 (a) to pay interest amount of Rs. 14,87,000 approximately to complainant No. 2 as shown in Annexure No. C. (b) to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the inconvenience, discomfort and agony suffered by the complainant No. 2 in view of the failure of the opposite party No. 1 to pay interest in time. (c) to pay Rs. 10,000 as cost to complainant No. 1, as cost of filing this complaint. (d) to pay Rs. 5,000 as cost to complainant No. 2, for filing this complaint."

BRIEFLY stated, the complainant''s case is that he had dealings in shares as investor with opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the opponent, a share-broker in the year 1995-96. According to his case, his outstanding dues amounted to Rs. 1,00,59,676 from the opponent which resulted in filing of complaint by the complainant against the opponent before Ahmedabad Stock Exchange who has been joined as opponent No. 2, though no relief has been prayed for against the said opponent. The matter was referred to Investors'' Grievance Committee of the stock exchange on 16.5.1996. The opponent was called before the said Committee and it was decided that the opponent should pay to the complainant his dues in instalments approved by the Committee. As per the decision of the Committee, the dues were totally paid, the last payment being Rs. 12,39,490 received by the complainant on 1.10.1996. It was the complainant''s grievance that he would be entitled to interest on his outstanding dues for the period during which they remained unpaid. The complainant has, therefore, referred to the correspondence ensued between him and the opponents and has filed the present complaint against the first opponent for recovery of the interest amount as noted in the aforesaid relief. Such complaint came to be filed on or around 29.1.1999. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, the opponent has asserted in his written statement Exh. 6 that the complaint is not maintainable at law, that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear such a complaint, that it is barred by limitation, that the matter was referred to arbitration of Investor Grievance Committee and after the decision was rendered by the said Committee and payment was made by the opponent, complainant was not entitled to raise the dispute with regard to interest and the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

We have heard the learned representative for the complainant and learned Advocate for the opponent. Basic question that arises for our consideration are- (1) Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation? (2) Whether the complainant would be entitled to raise dispute of interest after the decision of the Investor Grievance Committee?

INSOFAR as question of limitation is concerned, it is settled law that no amount of correspondence would save limitation. We, therefore, need not refer to the correspondence which has ensued subsequent to the decision of the Investor Grievance Committee and referred to in this complaint. In our considered opinion that would be a futile exercise. Besides, when the complaint was filed there was no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which would enable condonation of delay in filing a complaint. It is not in dispute that the period of limitation for filing a complaint was two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, the cause of action in the present case accrued in favour of the complainant when the huge amount of Rs. 1,00,59,676 became outstanding in the year 1995-96. Even if the last date of payment made by the opponent as per the award of the Investor Grievance Committee is taken into consideration, it is 1.10.1996. The complaint has been filed on 27.1.1999, quite beyond the period of limitation. It would, therefore, clearly appear on the face of the record that the present complaint was not filed within the period of limitation and would merit dismissal on that ground alone. It is not in dispute that when the dispute with regard to outstanding dues between the complainant and the 1st opponent arose, they jointly referred it to the arbitration of Investor Grievance Committee. The matter was thrashed out in the presence of and with the consent of the parties which has resulted into passing of award by the Committee. Payments were also made in accordance therewith. Instalments were granted also as per the process of arbitration which was undertaken before the Committee. All these facts are not in dispute. It has been submitted that there was no agreement with regard to award of interest. However, what is important is reference of a dispute with regard to outstanding dues and if reference is made to letter dated 24.7.1996 written by the complainant to the Executive Director of the Stock Exchange (opponent No. 2), it would clearly appear that the complainant made grievance not only of his principal amount but also of interest i.e., "please intervene in this matter and take care of me, being fully paid my dues with interest". Now, if such a dispute was referred to arbitration of the aforesaid Committee and the Committee gave award for lumpsum amount it would necessarily mean that no further amount was awarded in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the dispute with regard to interest remained no more in existence and should never have been taken by the complainant. We, therefore, answer the second question against the complainant holding that complainant would not be entitled to raise dispute of interest after the decision of the Investor Grievance Committee.

IN view of what is stated above and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, following order is passed. ORDER This complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.