IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint cannot be filed concerning business dealings.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Present revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, ‘Act’) praying for setting asideORDER dated 22.4.2008, passed in (First Appeal No.155 of 2007) by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (short, “State Commission”).

2. Respondent/complainant had filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Act on the allegations that he is having business of hardware and steel in the Kolhapur City. He is customer of Petitioner – Bank/Opposite Party. It is stated that respondent is having his loan share account with the Petitioner. Respondent had purchased shares of many well-known companies and has opened the share Mortgage Account with the Petitioner. Further, respondent had taken loan against the said shares from the Petitioner. As per written instructions of the Petitioner, some of the shares have been sold and have maintained the said account in a proper manner. It is also stated that respondent has given the oral as well as written permission to the petitioner for selling the shares from the said account. As per fluctuations of the price of the shares in the share market and due to the same, if the overdraft facility limit is reduced from the specific stage, then the shares of the said amount shall be sold out in the market or the cash amount lying depositing in the said account. However, if respondent failed to maintain the said account properly, then Petitioner has the right to sell the shares out the amount of deficit in the said account. However, petitioner had no right to sell or exchange any of the shares without the written permission of the respondent from the said account.

3. As there was sudden fall in the value of the shares and inspite of intimation, respondent could not maintain his account properly. Therefore, petitioner sold the shares to which respondent raised strong objection on the ground, that without proper intimation and without waiting for seven days as per terms of the contract, Petitioner sold the shares and thereby caused financial loss to him.

4. It is further stated that shares of Hero Honda were sold for Rs.95,212/- and shares of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd. were sold for Rs.59,820/- on 9.6.2004, as there was shortfall in the account of the respondent. The respondent deposited additional amount of Rs.20,000/- to make the account regular. This was in response to the notice sent by the Petitioner on 17.5.2004. The petitioner sold the shares on 15.6.2004. The intimation by telegram was given to the respondent on 13.6.2004. In fact, Petitioner sold the shares within two days from the telegraphic notice. As per the contract, Petitioner was required to wait for seven days, but it did not wait for seven days and sold the shares within two days from the date of service of telegraphic notice. This is a serious deficiency on the part of the Petitioner. With these allegations, respondent filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (short, “District Forum”) with following prayers:

(a) That the Opposite Party – Bank has sold the shares from the share account of the complainant and owned by him of the “Galaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.” and “Tata Chemicals Ltd.” on 17.6.2004 and caused the loss and damage to the complainant amounting to Rs.47,260/- beORDERed to be paid by the Opposite Party – Bank to the complainant viz. Rs.47,260 together with interest on the same at the rate of 18% per annum, being the loss caused to him.

(b) The amount of Rs.5,000/- also beORDERed to be paid by the Opposite Party – Bank to the complainant towards the compensation for mental tortures and loss ;

(c) The cost of the complaint amount to Rs.1,000/- beORDERed to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant as he has been compelled to file the same due to fault on their part in acting illegally.”

5. The complaint was contested by the petitioner, who in its written statement