Case nº Revision Petition No. 4246 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 18/08/2010 in Appeal No. 3286/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka) of NCDRC Cases, February 10, 2017 (case Geojit Bnp Pribas Financial Service Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sunil Dattaram Raikar)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. P.V. Dinesh & Mr. Rajendra Beniwal, Adv.
PresidentMr.K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member
Resolution DateFebruary 10, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases

Order:

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 3286 of 2010 -- M/s. Geojit BNP Pribas Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sunil Dattaram Raikar by which, appeal was dismissed at admission stage.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent resident of Belgaum was carrying on business of jewellery at Belgaum and also dealing in shares and securities; so, opened account with OPs and placed orders for purchase of shares and made payment of shares purchased by him. It was further submitted that on 4.10.2007 and 5.10.2017, complainant sold shares. It was further submitted that after 4 months, complainant went to the office of OPs and enquired about trend of market and his balance amount and was shocked to know that only Rs.13,500/- was available in his account and remaining amount was utilized by OPs for purchase of different shares without his consent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and further submitted that numerous transactions were carried out as per instructions of complainant and intimation of intraday transactions was given to the complainant. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,17,838.43 with 12% p.a. interest along with compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/. Appeal filed by OPs was dismissed by learned State Commission at admission stage vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

  3. None appeared for respondent even after service of notice and he was proceeded ex-parte.

  4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record.

  5. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is neither speaking order nor considered huge intraday transactions of the complainant and question of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora and has committed error in dismissing appeal at admission stage; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order.

  6. In memo...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT