@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard counsel in detail.
2. The writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the State Commission, confirming the order of the District Forum.
3. The first petitioner is a Sub-broker. Petitioner No. 2 is a director of the Company. Before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the respondent complained of deficiency in service by the Company. According to the complainant, the first petitioner before us, a sub-broker, in spite of specific instructions given by her and in spite of a sum of Rs. 2,21,297/- being available with it, did not purchase 500 shares in Larsen and Toubro and transfer it to her D-mat account and that only later, it purchased 500 shares in two instalments and transferred the same to her D-mat account. This was against specific instructions. The broker had spent only Rs. 1,05,395/- for purchase of the 500 shares at a later point of time and hence a sum of Rs. 1,15.902/-out of the sum of Rs. 2,21,297/- belonging to her, remained with the broker and the same had not been retuned to her. She submitted that the failure to purchase the shares as instructed by her and to transfer it to her D-mat account amounted to deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and she was entitled to compensation in terms of that Act. She actually claimed the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,15,902/- with interest thereon. The petitioner resisted the claim. One of its main contentions was that it had purchased the shares on the day as instructed, but could not transfer it to the D-mat account of the Consumer, since the number of the D-mat account of the customer was not available with the petitioner and that there was no deficiency in service which would enable the claimant to approach the Consumer Redressal Forum. The District forum, on a consideration of the available materials, came to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner that it did not have the number of the D-mat account of the consumer, was not believable as the materials disclosed that it was very much aware of that number. The District Forum further found that the petitioner had failed to show that 500 shares in Larsen and Toubro were purchased on 14.1.2000, the date on which it was instructed by her to purchase and the shares was purchased in two instalments, one instalment on 8.5.2000 and the other on 30.5.2000. It was also found that the amount of Rs. 2,21,297/- belonging to the Consumer was available with the petitioner for purchase of 500 shares and the petitioner had only spent Rs. 1,05,395/- for purchasing the shares and hence, the petitioner was liable to return a sum of Rs. 1,15,902/-, the sum unutilized, out of the sum of Rs. 2,21,297/-, remaining with the petitioner. The District Forum, therefore, directed the petitioner to return that sum with interest thereon at 18% per annum.
4. On appeal by the petitioner, the State Commission, on an elaborate consideration of all the facts available in the case, came to the conclusion that the District Forum was justified in holding that the petitioner did have the D-mat account number of the consumer; that the petitioner failed to show that he purchased the 500 shares on the date agreed upon; that the petitioner had, in fact, purchased the shares, not as instructed by the Consumer, but only on subsequent dates in two instalments and that the petitioner had spent only a sum of Rs. 1,05,395/- out of the sum of Rs. 2,21,297/-, belonging to the consumer and available with it and in that situation, the District Forum was fully justified in ordering the refund of that amount with interest thereon. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission, on a consideration of the relevant materials within the confines of its revisional jurisdiction, came to the conclusion that the findings of fact rendered by the District Forum and by the State Commission were fully justified on the materials available and there was no error made out for interference in revision. But, still, the Commission reduced the rate of interest made payable by the petitioners from 18% to 12% per annum. It also directed that the amounts paid by the petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings, be given credit to, while calculating the balance amount due to the consumer. Thus, the revision was substantially dismissed, subject to the reduction in the rate of interest.
5. We find that the finding of fact rendered by the District Forum as affirmed by the appellate forum and the revisional forum are based on relevant materials. According to us, the District Forum and the State Commission asked themselves the right questions and have also given the right answers. The story of the petitioner that it did not have the D-mat account number of the consumer was rightly rejected, as not believable, in the circumstances of the case. It is evident from the materials, that the petitioner had sold 500 shares in the Larsen and Toubro belonging to the consumer, just before the present transaction '' and the delivery note given to her on 30.12.1999, did have the D- mat account number of the consumer. Even otherwise, the petitioner seems to be a broker, employed by the respondent at least on more than one occasion. In such a situation, it is difficult to believe the story that it was not aware of the D-mat account number of its customer. Then the other question is whether the finding that he did not purchase the shares on the date he was instructed to buy them, as agreed upon. But, here again, the fora have referred to the relevant materials to come to the conclusion that the shares were not purchased on the date on which they were instructed to be purchased but those were purchased in two instalments on different dates in the month of May, 2000. This fact is again supported by the relevant materials. That the funds belonging to the consumer were available on the relevant dates with the petitioners was not even in dispute.
6. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the findings of fact rendered by the authorities cannot DC said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nor can it be said that the findings of fact rendered by the authorities are findings no tribunal trained in law could have come to the materials available in this case.
7. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that no interference is warranted. We dismiss the writ petition.
