SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(UK) 203

B.C.KANDPAL, D.K.TYAGI, VEENA SHARMA
RAJ KUMAR GAURAV – Appellant
Versus
INDIA INFOLINE SECURITIES P. LTD. – Respondent


ORDER :

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

The complainant has filed this consumer complaint before this Commission under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties for compensation of Rs. 25,45,000/- towards financial loss, Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 15.00 lacs towards mental pain and agony.

2. The complainant has stated in the consumer complaint that he had a DMat account having client ID No. 10611068 with Alankit Assignment Ltd., New Delhi. In the month of February, 2006, the complainant on the representation of the opposite party No. 2 had opened his DMAT account with the opposite parties and was allotted account Login ID-RAJRAV-67 and clinet ID 10683809. The complainant was made to sign a form and the opposite parties had obtained about 40 signatures on the said form but at that time neither the said form was filled up nor any copy of the said form was provided to the complainant despite his request. That as agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties were supposed to provide statement of account to the complainant every month besides doing transaction in the said account on duly issued instructi




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top