Commission holds party liable for non-payment of shares sale proceeds; rejects false defense; orders payment with interest. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the opposite party liable for failing to pay the sale proceeds for shares sold through a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Commission holds party liable for non-payment of shares sale proceeds; rejects false defense; orders payment with interest.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the opposite party liable for failing to pay the sale proceeds for shares sold through a broker. The commission rejected the false defense presented in a legal notice, finding deficiency in service. The opposite party was directed to pay the due amount along with interest, compensation, and costs to the complainant within a specified timeframe, under the Consumer Protection Act. Failure to comply would lead to further legal action.
Issues: 1. Failure to pay sale proceeds for shares sold through a broker. 2. Legal notice sent by the opposite party claiming shares were still with him. 3. Deficiency in service and failure to pay the due amount.
Issue 1: Failure to pay sale proceeds for shares sold through a broker
The complainant handed over 900 shares for sale to the opposite party, who informed her about selling them through a registered broker and the expected sale proceeds. Despite reminders and extensions, the payment was not made. The complainant confirmed the sale through the broker and that the proceeds were credited to the opposite party's account. The opposite party failed to pay the due amount, leading to the complaint and subsequent legal proceedings.
Issue 2: Legal notice sent by the opposite party claiming shares were still with him
In an attempt to create a false defense, the opposite party sent a legal notice to the complainant claiming that the shares were still in his possession and asking for settlement. This notice was deemed illegal and lacking supporting evidence. The commission rejected this defense as an afterthought and highlighted the deficiency in service by the opposite party in failing to pay the due amount for the shares sold.
Issue 3: Deficiency in service and failure to pay the due amount
The commission reviewed the facts and documents provided by the complainant, establishing that the opposite party received the sale proceeds but did not pay the due amount to the complainant. The commission found the opposite party liable to return the amount received after deducting the brokerage. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the commission allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party to pay the due amount along with interest, compensation, and costs within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in further legal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the opposite party accountable for failing to pay the sale proceeds for shares sold through a broker, rejecting the false defense presented in a legal notice. The commission found deficiency in service and ordered the opposite party to pay the due amount with interest, compensation, and costs to the complainant within a specified timeframe.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
