1994 (2) TMI 229 - Commission - Companies Law

Consumer - Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 for investment in shares and became a member of shares trading facility of opposite party - Opposite party neither invested amount paid by complainant nor advanced any loan and complainant sustained loss of Rs. 10 lakhs due to negligence of opposite party - Complainant Tiled complaint before Commissioner of Police - Opposite party, with a view to get matters settled and to purchase peace, arrived at a final and full settlement and opposite party agreed to pay amount of Rs. 22,500 in respect of investment, profits and compensation - It was evidenced by settlement-cum-receipt on 8-9-1991 - She encashed amounts and wrote a letter to Inspector of Police on same date stating that there was amicable settlement and accounts were settled fully and finally and requested to close case and withdrew her complaint she again filed a police complaint afresh and started demanding payment of some more amount - It was also stated that, as the opposite party refused to pay any further sum, she filed a complaint in District Forum which was dismissed -Whether it could be said that complainant and opposite party together on 8-9-1991 arrived at a full and final settlement of claims relating to profits and compensation - Held, yes - Whether as opposite party had charged commission and undertook to render service to complainant, complainant was a consumer who had hired services of opposite party - Held, yes - Whether complaint was maintainable - Held, yes

Issues Involved:
1. Full and final settlement of accounts between the parties.
2. Barred by res judicata under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Complainant's status as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. Nature of the claim as purely for settlement of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Full and Final Settlement of Accounts:
The primary issue was whether there was a full and final settlement of accounts between the complainant and the opposite party on 8-9-1991. The complainant paid Rs. 10,000 for investment and became a member of the share trading facility of the opposite party. Documents such as Ex. A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 were examined, showing the terms of investment and promises made by the opposite party. The opposite party claimed that a full and final settlement was reached on 8-9-1991, evidenced by Ex. B.10, a settlement-cum-receipt, and a letter from the complainant to the Inspector of Police (Ex. B.11) withdrawing her complaint. The complainant did not specifically deny this settlement in her reply affidavit. The Commission concluded that the complainant and the opposite party arrived at a full and final settlement of claims relating to profits and compensation on 8-9-1991.

2. Barred by Res Judicata:
The second issue was whether the complaint was barred by res judicata under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to the dismissal of CD. Nos. 442 and 443 of 1992 by the District Forum. Given the finding of a full and final settlement, the Commission deemed it unnecessary to delve into whether the complaint was barred by res judicata or under Order 2, Rule 2.

3. Complainant's Status as a Consumer:
The third issue was whether the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant invested money and entrusted shares to the opposite party, who charged a commission for portfolio management services. The Commission held that since the opposite party charged for services, the complainant was indeed a consumer who hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. Hence, the complainant was entitled to maintain the complaint.

4. Nature of the Claim:
The fourth issue was whether the claim was purely for the settlement of accounts. The complaint sought Rs. 9 lakhs for losses due to the opposite party's negligence in not investing the amount and not advancing loans. The Commission noted that the claim was not for the settlement of accounts but for probable profits lost due to the opposite party's actions. However, the Commission found that the settlement on 8-9-1991, which included all claims of investment, profits, and compensation, precluded further claims. The Commission referenced various judgments but found them inapplicable to the specific facts of this case.

Conclusion:
The complaint was dismissed on the basis that there was a full and final settlement of all claims, including those related to profits and compensation. The complainant was recognized as a consumer, but the settlement precluded any further claims. The issue of res judicata was deemed unnecessary to address due to the settlement. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →