Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The case of the complainant as seen from the complaint is as follows : The complainant obtained the Portfolio management services for investment in shares from the opposite party i.e. Aneja Financial Consultancy Services. The opposite party promised to sell and purchase shares on her behalf by investing the amount received from the complainant and also promised to advance loan in equal amount paid. The complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards investment. The opposite party promised that he will make windfall profits and investor can become a millionaire within 3 to 6 months and promised to advance a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite party neither invested the amount paid by the complainant nor advanced any loan and the complainant sustained loss of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) due to negligence of the opposite party. Complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with interest from the date of award till realisation, and costs.

2. The version of the opposite party as could be seen from the counter is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 7.12.90 and the same was credited to her account but it is unimaginable how she can claim Rs. 9 lakhs, on the investment of Rs. 10,000/- and did not claim Rs. 9 Lakhs in the notice issued by the complainant dated 17.7.91. At the request of the complainant on 28.7.91 the account was settled at the lower rate prevailing on 24.7.91 and an amount of Rs. 4,000/-was paid by cheque on the same day. On 31.7.91 a full and final settlement was made and it was found that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,673.00 which was paid by cheque dated 24.8.1991 and the same was acknowledged by the complainant in full and final settlement and 100 shares of Super forgings were returned to her. In addition to the aforesaid settlement the complainant with a view to harass the opposite party, filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police which was forwarded to the Crime Branch, Team No. 4, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Although, the opposite party was not liable to pay anything with a view to get the matters settled and to purchase peace they arrived at a final and full settlement and the opposite party agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 22,500/- and the same was evidenced by settlement cum receipt dated 8.9.91 and the opposite party issued five different cheques for payment of Rs. 22,500/-. The above cheques were encashed by the complainant. But, she again filed a police complaint afresh in April, 1992 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 C.D. Nos. 442 and 443/92 in the District Forum, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 31.12.1992. Hence the opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as: (1) the complainant settled her account fully and finally on 8.9.1981; (2) She filed C.D. Nos. 442 and 443/92 in respect of the same dealings and the present complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by res-judicata, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; (3) the complainant is not a consumer and the transactions in question are of commercial nature as they relate to purchase and selling of shares; (4) the complainant is a member of the Share Trading Facility of the opposite party and cannot be said to have hired the services of the opposite party; and (5) lastly the claim is purely for settlement of accounts and is not maintainable in the Forum.

3. In reply to the above, the complainant apart from denying the allegations made in the counter submitted that she claimed nine lakhs of rupees on the promise of the opposite party that one can become a millionaire within a short time. According to her she was forced to accept less market rate even for settlement. Account was prepared subsequent to that settlement. According to her, the letter of full and final settlement dated 24.7.1991 is forged on blank papers on which her signature has been obta