ORDER

THIRU.K.VELUMANI, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER II

The complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking the relief to direct the opposite parties 1to 3 to delete the debit entry of Rs.3,00,000/- made in the complainant’s demat account on 28.01.2011 and subsequent entries charging interest for said amount and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, pain and anguish suffered by the complainant andpayRs.10,000/-as cost of this complaint

2.Case of the complainant:-

The complainant has a demat account with the 1st opposite party.

Mrs.Leelavathi, one of his close relatives, having acquainted with the involvement of risk and reward prevailing in the stock market, wanted to invest Rs.3,00,000/- in the complainant's trading account. The cheques drawn in favour of Angel Broking given by Mrs.Leelavathi were deposited in the complainant's trading account. Later, due to unfavourable market conditions, the complainant's account incurred loss and the same was informed to her by him. The opposite parties 1 and 2 debited Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant's account without any rhyme or reason. The complainant made query with 1st opposite party the reason for the debit. They informed that Mrs.Leelavathi preferred complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the opposite parties 4 and 5 regarding the loss suffered by her in trading. The complainant learnt that the opposite parties 4 and 5 have pulled up the opposite parties 2 and 3 from accepting third party cheques, which is prohibited and would take penal action, impose penalty on them for accepting third party cheques and directed them to redress the grievance of Mrs. Leelavathi. The opposite parties 2 and 3 accepted the third party cheques till the end of June 2009.The transaction pertaining to this dispute is on July 2008.The opposite parties 2 and 3 knew that they were the third party's cheques and they settled the amount to Mrs.Leelavathi to escape from their liability by debiting the amount from the complainant's account. The opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot make the complainant a scapegoat as there is no fault on him. The settlement of amount lost by Ms.Leelavathi in share market by the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not a sane direction. The direction of the 4th and 5th opposite parties to the opposite parties 1to3 to settle the amount lost in trading by Mrs.Leelavathi is not legally sustainable and lacks credibility. If the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have committed any violation of SEBI Act or Rules and Regulations, then it warrants interference of the 4th and 5th opposite parties, but here they have no authority to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to settle the amount lost by Mrs.Leelavathi (a third party) and debit said amount from the complainants account. The said act of the 4th and 5th opposite parties are unlawful, arbitrary and is against the provisions governing their functioning. The complainant is not seeking any relief against the 4th and 5th opposite parties, but they are added as parties to the complaint only for effective adjudication. The dispute regarding the acceptance of 3rd party's cheques by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in violation of the instructions of the 4th and 5th opposite parties has to be dealt with appropriate provisions of law and not in the manner narrated above. The 4th and 5th opposite parties have powers to take penal action against the opposite parties 1 to 3, but the 4th and 5th opposite parties have no business or legal right to direct them to debit the amount in the complainant's demat account. The opposite parties have acted in an unlawful manner for obvious reasons. This act of opposite parties 1 to 3 has caused acute mental agony, pain and anguish to the complainant and his family members. All this has arisen as a result of the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties 1 to 3. The complainant is entitled to claim compensation for mental agony and the pain suffered by