TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f all moneys due and damages - Whether relationship between complainant, and share broker was the relationship providing service for consideration by charging commission, and, therefore complainant was a consumer within a meaning of section 2(1)(d) - Held, yes - Whether opponent having failed to render services or give account of shares sold by him and his cheques having been dishonoured, complainant had been duped and was thus entitled to damages from opponent - Held, yes - APPEAL NOS. 9 TO 11 OF 1993 - - - Dated:- 22-3-1993 - JUSTICE S.A. SHAH, PRESIDENT AND DR. R.K. SHAH, MEMBER R.S. Sanjanwala for the Complainant. M.R. Amin for the Respondent. ORDER Justice S.A. Shah, President - These appeals involve same que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logged in the business. It appears that thereafter the complainant purchased Special Steel right shares. The complainant has also paid Rs. 1,500 for purchasing right shares for which the receipt was given by opponent. In spite of demanding several times, the opponent neither gave the sale price nor returned the share certificate of Special Steel or letter of allotment and hence the complainant requested the opponent to repay the price of the said shares but the opponent neither returned the shares nor the price thereof and started giving promises. Thereafter there were bonus issue of Steel shares 1:1. The complainant was entitled to 20 shares. The Steel shares whose face value was Rs. 100 were again divided into 10 shares and, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o defend his case. Three complaints were filed before the District Forum. The particulars thereof are as under : Complaint No. 425 of 1991 Complainant: Hitesh Dineshchandra Mali 426/91 Complainant: Hitesh Dineshchandra Mali Complaint No. 427 of 1991 Complainant: Ramilaben Hitesh Mali 6. Now we will refer to the proceedings of the District Forum in Complaint No. 427 of 1991. The complaint appears to have been filed on 30-8-1991. Notice was issued to the opponent. The notice appears to have been served on Ushaben Chokshi on behalf of Indravadan Choksy, the opponent and the date for appearance fixed was 13-12-1991. On that date the matter was adjourned to 27-12-1991 on application of the opponent. Again, on 17-1-1992 the case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he brokers are selling or purchasing shares in their own name and the contracts between seller and the broker are principal to principal. While selling/purchasing the shares, the sale price or purchase price include the commission. It is nobody's say that the brokers are doing this business gratuitously. They are rendering finan- cial services by taking commission. Therefore, the relationship between the seller and the broker is the relationship providing service for considera-tion by charging commission. The complainant is, therefore, a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)( d ) of the Act. So far the fraud is concerned, we do not find any merits in the submission. On the contrary it appears that the complainant has delivered the sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the submissions of Mr. Sanjanwala. 10. Lastly, so far the Appeal No. 11 of 1993 is concerned, the appeal has been preferred against the Consumer Case No. 427 of 1991. The Con- sumer Case No. 427 of 1991 was filed by Ms. Ramilaben Dineshchandra Mali and not Hitesh Dineshchandra Mali. The judgment produced alongwith the appeal clearly shows that the complainant is Ms. Ramilaben D. Mali whereas the appeal is filed against Hitesh Dineshchandra Mali and, therefore, this appeal shall have to be dismissed on one more ground that the appeal is not filed against Ms. Ramilaben but has been filed against a wrong person and is liable to be rejected. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in any of the appeals and same are d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|