SHIV RAJ SINGH vs MAGNUM INVESTMENTS

THE case of the petitioner is that he entrusted various transactions of stock and shares to the respondents and the respondents during the course of business charged commission illegally and at a higher rate than was prescribed and prevalent in the trade. That the respondents even did not disclose the contracts to the petitioner and were conducting transactions of buying and selling shares merely on paper and not through the registered brokers and manipulated the transactions and defrauded the petitioner. THE petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- as relief.

THE respondents had refuted the claim of the petitioner and in their written statement they have raised preliminary objections that the complainant was not a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant had fabricated the figure in quantifying the claim with the intention of invoking the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and that the petition was liable to be rejected on the basis of the above preliminary objections. We have examined the documents filed by the parties so far and also heard them, regarding the above mentioned objections. Since the purchase and sale of shares is a service involving finances and individual or agency providing such services for the purchase and sale of the share was obviously covered under the mischief of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as per provision made under Section 2(1)a of the Act. As regards the second objection of pecuniary jurisdiction both the parties have submitted statements of accounts and have also enclosed a number of documents in support of their respective claim and counter claims. The petitioner asked for relief of Rs. 1,70,000/-. The respondents have contradicted the claim through their detailed written statement. The authenticity and veracity of the documents and statements of accounts submitted can be determined after evidence has been lead by the respective parties.

We have already taken cognizance of this matter and the proceedings are at an advanced stage. In view of the above discussed factual position the preliminary objections taken by the respondent stand rejected. Both the parties are directed to submit their evidence by way of affidavits on the next date of hearing. Preliminary objection rejected.