T. Chacko Vs. Vertex Securities Ltd., Thottathil Towers and Others

T. Chacko vs Vertex Securities Ltd., Thottathil Towers and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided May 31, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1147441

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1147441
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: The Honourbale Mr. Justice P.Q. Barkathali, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. V.V. Jose, Member
Decided On: May 31, 2014
Case Number: First Appeal No. 291 of 2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/11/2012 in Case No. 374/2011 of District Thiruvananthapuram)
Subject: Consumer

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer

Key legal issue: Consumer

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T. Chacko

Respondent

Vertex Securities Ltd., Thottathil Towers and Others

Excerpt

p.q. barkath ali : president this is an appeal filed by the complainant in cc.374/11 on the file of cdrf, thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the consumer protection act challenging the order of the forum dated, november 15, 2011 dismissing the complaint. 2. the case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the forum in brief is this:- the complainant deposited rs.75,000/- with the vazhuthacaud branch of the trading member-vertex securities ltd., on october 14, 2000 in account no.7025 for trading in shares and obtained receipt. sri.v.sudhev, the employee of opposite parties 1 and 2 informed the complainant that said amount of rs.75,000/- has to be remitted being the market value of shares. the first opposite party is m/s vertex securities limited, kochi, the 2nd opposite party is its head office at mumbai. opposite parties 1 and 2 fails to deposit the said amount share trading. though the complainant approached the first opposite party they did not returned the amount. complainant moved the regional manager, sebi by letter dated, july 08, 2010 demanding the intervention of the 4th opposite party who took up the matter with the 3rd opposite party, national securities and exchange limited. the 3rd opposite party by letter dated, february 04, 2011 informed the complainant about their inability to take any action. therefore complainant filed this complaint claiming that amount and compensation. 3. the opposite parties in their version mainly contended that complaint is barred by limitation as the transaction took place on october 14, 2000 and complaint was filed on 28.11.2011 ie after 10 years. they also contended that complaint is not maintainable as the transaction relates to trading in shares which is a commercial transaction. forum found that complaint is barred by limitation and that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant deposited the amount for the purchase of shares which is a commercial transaction. the complainant has come up in.....

Full Judgment

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.374/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 15, 2011 dismissing the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

The complainant deposited Rs.75,000/- with the Vazhuthacaud branch of the Trading Member-Vertex Securities Ltd., on October 14, 2000 in Account No.7025 for trading in shares and obtained receipt. Sri.V.Sudhev, the employee of opposite parties 1 and 2 informed the complainant that said amount of Rs.75,000/- has to be remitted being the market value of shares. The first opposite party is M/s Vertex Securities Limited, Kochi, the 2^nd opposite party is its Head Office at Mumbai. Opposite parties 1 and 2 fails to deposit the said amount share trading. Though the complainant approached the first opposite party they did not returned the amount. Complainant moved the Regional Manager, SEBI by letter dated, July 08, 2010 demanding the intervention of the 4^th opposite party who took up the matter with the 3^rd opposite party, National Securities and Exchange Limited. The 3^rd opposite party by letter dated, February 04, 2011 informed the complainant about their inability to take any action. Therefore complainant filed this complaint claiming that amount and compensation.

3. The opposite parties in their version mainly contended that complaint is barred by limitation as the transaction took place on October 14, 2000 and complaint was filed on 28.11.2011 ie after 10 years. They also contended that complaint is not maintainable as the transaction relates to trading in shares which is a commercial transaction. Forum found that complaint is barred by limitation and that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant deposited the amount for the purchase of shares which is a commercial transaction. The complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

4. Heard both the counsels.

5. The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6. For the following reasons we are of the view that complaint is not barred by limitation and the same is maintainable. The complainant produced a letter dated, December 21, 2010 from the first opposite party informing that they are not in a position to trace out the data. Therefore cause of action for this complaint arose on December 21, 2010. The complaint is seen filed on 28.11.2011. That being so complaint is not barred by limitation and is maintainable. The finding of the Forum on this point is reversed.

7. The next point to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable as the amount deposited by the complainant is for trading in shares. The counsel for the respondents cited the decisions in Vijayakumar Vs. Indus Ind Bank II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) and argued that complainant has deposited the amount with first opposite party for trading in shares which is a commercial transaction and that therefore complaint is not maintainable. There is no merit in the above contention. The National Commission in DelhiStock Exchange Vs. Ravinder Pal Singh and Another 1(2008) CPJ 341 (NC) has held that a complaint for recovery of the invested amount for the purchase of shares is maintainable. In the light of the principles laid down by the National Commission in the above decision we are of the view that complaint is maintainable. The finding of the Forum on this point is reversed.

8. The next question for consideration is whether the complaint has to be remanded to the Forum for fresh consideration. It is seen from the records that opposite parties have only raised the question of maintainability in their version. Therefore the matter has to be remanded to the Forum for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal is allowed by way of remand. It is found that complaint is maintainable and is not barred by limitation. The matter is remanded to the Forum for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the Forum on 15.07.2014. The opposite parties are permitted to file additional version within 2 weeks from 15.7.2014 and the Forum shall dispose of the complaint within 3 months from that date.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties T. Chacko vs Vertex Securities Ltd., Thottathil Towers and Ot... Same Subject Consumer Same Judge The Honourbale Mr. Justice P.Q. Barkathali, President &Amp; t...