National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revision Petition No. 1479 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Senior Manager,
DSE House, 3/1,
New Delhi-110 002. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Ravinder Pal Singh,
D-78,
Defence Colony,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2046 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Ravinder Pal Singh,
D-78,
Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110 024. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.
Senior Manager,
New
Delhi-110 002.
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028. .. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1480 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Jatinder Kaur,
W/o of Daljit Singh
R/o
C-460, Defence Colony,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2047 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Jatinder Kaur .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028.
Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1481 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Mrs. Harjeet Kaur,
D-78, Defence Colony,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2048 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Harjeet Kaur,
B-103,
Hill View Appartments,
Vasant Vihar,
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
New
Delhi-110 002.
2. Shri P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028. .. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1482 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Sr. Manager,
Vs.
1. Lt. Col. Joginder Singh (Retd.),
S/o S. Gopal Singh ,
D-78, Defence Colony,
2. Shri P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2049 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Lt.
Col. Joginder
Singh,
D-78,
Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110 024. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
New
Delhi-110 002.
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028. .. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1483 of 2005
(From
the Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003 to
A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Smt. Balvinder Kaur,
W/o Joginder Singh,
R/o
C-460, Defence Colony,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2050 of 2005
From the
Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003
to A-984/2003
and
Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003
of the order of the
State
Commission,
Baljinder
Kaur,
D-78,
Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110 024. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
New
Delhi-110 002.
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o
A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028. .. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1484 of 2005
From the
Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003
to A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Ms. Saran
Kaur,
D/o S. Raj Singh
R/o E-11,
Lajpat Nagtar-III,
New
Delhi11- 024.
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 2051 of 2005
From the
Order dated 5.5.2005 in Appeal Nos.A-979/2003
to A-984/2003
and Appeal Nos. A-1137/2003 to A-1142/2003 of the order of
the
State
Commission,
Saran
Kaur,
E-11, Lajpat Nagar III
New Delhi-110 024. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
New
Delhi-110 002.
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
R/o A-190, Inderpuri,
New
Delhi-110 028. .. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 948 of 2007
(From the order dated 28.11.2006 in Appeal
No.A-681/2006 of the State Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Surinder Singh,
BE-83
S.F.S. Flats,
Janakpuri
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No.1064 of 2007
From the order dated 28.11.2006 in Appeal
No.A-654/2006 of the State Commission,
Surinder Singh,
BE-83 S.F.S.
Flats,
Janakpuri
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
Revision Petition No. 949 of 2007
(From the Order dated 28.11.2006 in Appeal
No.A-680/2006 of the State Commission,
Senior Manager,
Vs.
1. Dalip Singh,
BE-83
S.F.S. Flats,
Janakpuri
Through
his L.R. Sh. Surinder Singh
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
A N D
Revision Petition No. 1065 of 2007
(From the Order dated 28.11.2006 in Appeal
No.A-655/2006 of the State Commission,
Dalip Singh (now deceased).
Through his L.R.
Surinder Singh,
BE-83 S.F.S. Flats,
Janakpuri
Vs.
1. Senior
Manager,
2. P.K. Wadhwa,
Proprietor,
M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.,
Member,
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT.
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMB ER.
MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER.
For
the
Senior Advocate with
Shri Ashutosh Sharma and
Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocates
For P.K. Wadhwa : N E M O
(Proprieotr0 M/s. P.K.
Wadhwa & Co.)
For the Complainants : Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi,
Advocate
Dated
O R
D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. , PRESIDENT
In case a share broker who is a member of a Stock Exchange is declared a defaulter by the said Stock Exchange, whether a complaint for recovery of the amount invested by an investor through such a broker for purchase of shares or receivable for the shares sold would be maintainable against the share broker and Stock Exchange?
In our view, not only does the broker is render service in the purchase and sale of listed securities but the Stock Exchange is also required to render service to the investors. The Stock Exchange controls and organizes the mode, manner and performance of the contract between the investors and its member brokers. It also charges fees on various counts. Further, a share broker cannot do any business in security transactions without becoming a member of the Stock Exchange, as provided in Section 19 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. The Stock Exchange is also required to maintain the Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund. Every member of the Stock Exchange is required to be a member of the said Fund and is required to make yearly contribution to the Fund. Similarly, the Stock Exchange is also required to make contribution to the said Fund. Further, the Stock Exchange, which is an incorporated company, consists of its members and acts through its members. Hence, the Stock Exchange is also a service provider.
Facts:
Before
the District Forum, Delhi, eight complaints were filed by investors against
the Delhi Stock Exchange (hereinafter called the DSE) alleging deficiency in
service in not ensuring disbursement of
the amounts due to the said investors
(Complainants), consequent upon the
transaction of sale and purchase of shares of various companies through
Opposite Party No.2, M/s.P.K.Wadhwa & Co., a Share Broker and Member of the DSE. As M/s. P.K.Wadhwa
& Co. failed to honour its
commitment, the DSE cancelled its ticket
(membership card). His ticket as broker was auctioned. However, the
Complainants claims were not honoured. Hence, the
following complaints were filed against the DSE and M/s. P.K. Wadhwa & Co., before the District Forum:
Case No.3033/99 Ravinder Pal
Singh Claiming Rs. 3,61,309.00
Case No.3032/99 Joginder Kaur claiming Rs. 1,36,745.00
Case No.3034/99 Harit Kaur claiming Rs. 4,10,515.00
Case No.2985 Joginder
Singh claiming Rs. 4,26,072.00
Case No.3035/99 Balvinder Kaur claiming Rs. 3,46,039.00
Case No.3036/99 Sarvan Kaur claiming Rs. 2,19,750.00
Case No.948/03 Surinder Singh claiming Rs. 2,47,500.00
Case
No.949/03 Dalip
Singh claiming Rs. 4,01,869.00
(now
deceased)
The District Forum, by its common/similar judgment and order dated
30.5.2003/10.5.2006, allowed the
complaints partly and held that payment in respect of any single customer
investor shall not exceed a sum of Rs.1 lakh and the total liability of the DSE would be only Rs.25
lakh per defaulter Member, namely, M/s. P.K.Wadhwa & Co.
The District Forum further observed that the claims of the Complainants
were admitted by the Opposite Party No.2, namely, M/s. P.K.Wahwda
& Co. and the liability of the DSE shall be limited to the extent of Rs.1 lakh only to each of the Complainants in view of the
ceiling on such payments per investor,
as laid down in the Rules governing the Investors Protection Fund operated by the
DSE.
Against
the common/similar judgment and order of
the District Forum, the DSE preferred Appeal Nos. A-977 of 2003, A-980 of 2003;
A-981 of 2003; A-982 of 2003; A-983 of 2003; A-984 of 2003, A-680 of 2006 and
A-681 of 2006 before the Delhi State Commission
praying for setting aside the order of the District Forum.
The
Complainants also preferred cross-appeal Nos. A-1137 of 2003; A-1138 of 2003;
A-1139 of 2003; A-1140 of 2003; A-1141 of 2003; A-1142 of 2003, A-654 of 2006
and A-655 of 2006 before the State
Commission contending that the ceiling of Rs.1,00,000/- would not be applicable
to them and also seeking enhancement
of the compensation. By a
common/similar judgment and order
dated 5.5.2005/28.11.2006, the State
Commission dismissed those appeals and observed that the District Forum had
rightly held that the liability of the DSE per customer was limited to Rs.1 lakh
(per Complainant), and the Respondent No.2, M/s.P.K.Wadhwa
& Co. had the individual liability of the entire amount received by him.
Against
that order the aforesaid Revision Petitions are filed by the DSE as well as
each of the Complainants.
Submissions
At
the time of hearing the learned counsel
for the DSE
contended as under:
(a) Complainants are not
consumers qua the DSE:
The DSE is merely a
regulatory body and a non-profit making organization which regulates the
business of sale/ purchase of shares and debentures and is governed by the
guidelines issued by the SEBI.
None of the
consumers/complainants had hired the services of the DSE in this case. In spite
of this, the State Commission fastened
the liability on the DSE on the ground that the DSE was deemed to have been providing services by
virtue of creating a fund/trust for protecting the defrauded investors and
non-payment from the said fund would amount to deficiency in service.
The Customer Protection Fund
is a Trust created under the guidelines of the SEBI and is to be used in
consonance with its objects. One of the most important objects of the creation
of the Fund is to protect the interests of the bona fide investors,
particularly small investors, from losses, but
not customers who indulge in speculative transactions.
Since the investor pays
consideration in the form of brokerage fee to hire the services of the broker,
the investor is a consumer qua only the broker and not the DSE, as the DSE does not receive any consideration from the
consumer-complainant.
Further, the margin money received by the DSE
does not amount to consideration for the
services rendered by the it but is
an advance deposit, which is to be
adjusted towards the transactions carried out by the member broker concerned.
(b) The Complainants did not allege deficiency in service against
the DSE in their complaints before the
District Forum. The only prayer of
the Complainants was that the District
Forum may direct the DSE that in case
latter sells the membership card of the broker, M/s.P.K.Wadhwa
&
The Complainants are not entitled to be paid from the sale proceeds of the
membership card of the defaulter broker, i.e.,
M/s.P.K.Wadhwa &
(c) The transactions of sale or
purchase of shares through the above-mentioned broker never took place
because the Complainants were not able
to prove before the Default Committee of the DSE that these transactions, in
fact, took place on the floor of the Stock Exchange. Further, the Complainants were unable to
furnish the basic and essential documents, such as distinctive numbers of shares sold, copies of
the contract issued by the broker evidencing the sale of shares and proof of
ownership of the shares sold. The Complainants instead of furnishing the
particulars sought by the Committee
filed complaints before the District
Forum. The State Commission and the District Forum did not adjudicate on this
point.
(d) In any case, the maximum
amount which can be paid out of Customer
Protection Fund for the claims arising against Defaulter Member is Rs.25 lakh.
It is contended that the DSE submitted a list of defrauded-investors to the State Commission, claiming a sum of Rs.8 crore (approximately). Out of the ceiling of Rs.25 lakh for defaults by the broker in question, the State Commission awarded Rs.6 lakh in favour of the six complainants, leaving Rs.19 lakh (only) to be distributed among 259 investors. Further, the DSE, in terms of Clauses 86 to 93 of its Articles of Association, shall always have a paramount continuing and floating lien and first charge on the share or shares and securities, ticket, etc., of any of its members towards the payment of his liability to the association or members of the DSE. Also, Byelaw No.334 provides that the net asset proceeds on the auction of the ticket of the defaulting member shall be used first to satisfy the claim of the DSE and clearing house and then on pro-rata basis admitted claims of the members against the defaulter arising out of the contracts entered into in the market in accordance with the provisions of rules, byelaws and regulations of the DSE and only thereafter the claims of the investors out of the residue, if any, shall be settled.
As against this, the learned
Counsel for the Complainants submitted the following :
(a) The
DSE controls and organises the mode, manner and
performance of the contracts between the investor and the member. Therefore, the DSE is a service provider. As per the procedure prevalent at that time,
the Complainants sold the shares through a Member Broker who handed them over
to the DSE and since the DSE did not reimburse the sale proceeds to the Member
Broker, the cheques issued by the Member Broker to
the investor client / Complainants were not honoured.
Thus, there was a complete transaction of sale and purchase of shares by the DSE through the Member Broker. Hence, the DSE is also a service provider.
In
support of this contention, it is pointed out that:
(i) Art.23 of the DSE provides that the DSE
controls the mode, manner, time and place of performance of contract between a
member broker of the Stock Exchange and their constituents / investors.
(ii) It
prescribes the scale of commission and brokerage which a member broker can charge from an investor client.
(iii) It
has the power to declare a member (broker) as a defaulter. For protecting and
safe-guarding the interests of the investors arising out of such default,
Consumer Protection Fund has been
established.
(iv) Rules
1, 7A (ii) and 7F provides for payment of compensation upto
Rs.1 lakh for the loss caused to a client investor.
(v) Byelaw
No.309 provides that the DSE will be
responsible in respect of the liabilities
of the Member declared as defaulter if the latter fails to meet the
obligations of the member / non-member arising out of stock exchange
transactions.
.(vi). Rule
6A provides that upon a member of the DSE being declared a defaulter, the DSE
steps into the shoes of the defaulter.
.(b). The DSE is not a non-profit body.
It is a profit making incorporated company because -
.(i). it issues tickets (membership cards) and
bonus tickets to the member brokers for granting them trading rights through
the Exchange and charges initial admission fee and regular subscription fee
;
.(ii). brokerage
is charged from the investor client at the prescribed scale ; and
.(iii). the creation of the Consumer Protection Fund and the iability of the DSE is limited to Rs.1 lakh. Hence non- payment of the said amount brings
the DSE within the purview of
deficiency under Sec.2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Further, a compensation of Rs.1 lakh was suggested by the SEBI as a guideline in 1995 with no bar to grant higher compensation and the amount may vary from time to time, vide Chapter 10 of the SEBI Rules. Para 3 of Chapter 10 of the SEBI Investor Protection Fund Rules provides that compensation shall be the amount of actual loss suffered by an investor.
Hence, the rules limiting payment of Rs.1 lakh do not prevent the Fora
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to grant the full claim.
Findings
In view of the aforesaid bar on doing business as a share broker, a person has to become a member of a recognized Stock Exchange. The Delhi Stock Exchange is constituted as a Company incorporated under the law. Without becoming a member of the Stock Exchange, share brokers are not permitted to have any transaction in purchase and sale of shares. Therefore, the Stock Exchange is apparently a service provider for purchase and sale of shares.
.(ii). As per its Memorandum of Association, the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. is a Company established for the objects which are mentioned in Art.3 of the Memorandum of Association, and has share capital. For its membership, a broker is required to pay the amount determined by the Stock Exchange, and the DSE is managed by an elective body, i.e., by the members of the Stock Exchange.
(iii) Further, the Delhi Stock Exchange is a service prvider as stated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association because it controls the mode, manner, time and place of performance of contract between the Broker Member and the investors. The DSE is also required to maintain and run a clearing house which receives shares and disburses payment to the member brokers.
(v) The margin money is also required to be deposited by the investor through the member broker with the DSE on the basis of the prescribed scale.
.(vi). The DSE is profit-making body, since it issues tickets (membership cards) as well as bonus tickets for trading rights to the member brokers who have to pay an initial admission fee and a regular subscription fee to DSE. The member broker, in turn, charges brokerage from the investor client on scale prescribed by the DSE.
(v) DSE is required to establish and has established Delhi Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund. Every member of the DSE is required to become a member of the Fund and contribute annually to the Fund. The DSE is also required to contribute to the Fund, as per Rule 5(E)(i) and (ii).
In addition, it is required to contribute 1% of the listing fee received by the Stock Exchange.
(vi) If a member of the DSE is declared as a defaulter, the trustees of the Fund step into the shoes of the defaulter member. They are entitled to exercise and perform various acts, as required under Rule (6). From the aforesaid Fund, maximum compensation payable to a single customer/investor is upto Rs.1,00,000/- and, in all, for the defaulter member, the said sum shall not exceed Rs.25,00,000/-.
II.(i) At this stage, we would refer to the rules framed by the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., Delhi, which is required to establish a Fund to protect and safeguard the interests of investors, particularly small investors from losses other than that of speculative nature arising out of default of member brokers of the Stock Exchange.
(ii) The rules are called Delhi Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund Rules and the Fund is established to protect and safeguard the interests of investors, particularly small investors as stated below:
(iii) It is to be
stated that every member of the Stock Exchange is both eligible and required
to be a Member of the aforesaid Fund. The member as well as the Stock
Exchange are required to contribute annually
to the Fund as prescribed.
Rule 6
of these Rules is as under:
6. Collection of debts due
from customers of defaulted member:
(A) Subject to the provisions of the Rules, bye-laws and Regulations
of the Delhi Stock Exchange, in force from time to time, upon a member of
the Stock Exchange being declared a defaulter, the Trustees shall forthwith
without any further act or deed on the part of a defaulter member or the Stock
Exchange, step into the shoes of the defaulter member and be entitled at
their sole discretion to exercise and perform the following acts or deeds:
(i) call in and realize all amounts due from
the customers of a defaulter member in respect of all transactions connected
with the purchase and sale of shares and debentures;
(ii) perform the obligation of procurement and / or delivery of
shares and debentures to the customers of a defaulter member against payment of
amount due;
(iii) give effectual and valid receipts or discharge for the same.
(B)
(C)
.
(D)
.
(E)
..
In
case of a defaulter member, the relevant rule for compensation is Rule
7(F) which reads as under:
(F). Compensation not to exceed maximum limit:
The compensation paid in respect of any single customer/investors claim shall not exceed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh only) per customer/member and Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.twenty five lakh only) per defaulter member. The Trustees may, at any time in consultation with the Council of Management of the Stock Exchange, increase and vary the maximum limit of compensation payable as aforesaid.
(iv) Interest at the rate of 2% per month shall be payable by the suspended members on the amount of money utilized out of the Customer Protection Fund. Such interest shall be recovered from the date of utilization of funds from the Customer Protection Fund upto the date of declaration of default or upto the actual date of repayment of all the moneys due to the Exchange for the revocation of suspension of the member concerned.
(v) From the aforesaid rules, it is also clear that the Fund is constituted for protection of small investors from the losses arising out of the default of a member broker of the Stock Exchange. In the present case, there is no dispute that Respondent No.2, who was a member of the DSE committed default in making payment or delivering shares for which amount were paid by the Complainants. In that set of circumstances, the Delhi Stock Exchange has to pay compensation upto Rs.1 lakh to each of the investors. That means, in case of default by a member broker, the investor shall be paid, in all, maximum amount of Rs.1 lakh.
(vi) Hence, the Complainants would be consumers who are affected by the services provided by the share broker, who was a member of the DSE and the DSE is required to provide various services as per (a) the Memorandum of Association and (b) the Rules governing the sale and purchase of shares including the constitution and operation of the fund for protection of the investors in case of default by its member(s) . From that Fund they are required to pay the amount as prescribed. Hence, the complaint for recovery of such amount, is maintainable.
III. Further, it was contended that against the defaulter members of the DSE there was a total claim for Rs.8 crore. However, before the District Forum or the State Commission or even before this Commission nothing has been placed that any of the defrauded investors have filed any complaint for recovering any amount leading to the total of Rs.8 crore from the said Customer Protection Fund. Hence, we find no substance in this contention and reject the same.
IV. It is pointed out that the shares paid for by the complainants were sold through the member broker who in turn was required to hand over the shares to the DSE. On receipt of the payment from the DSE, the member broker in turn issued cheques to the investor clients. Since the DSE did not reimburse the sale proceeds to the member broker, the cheques issued by the latter to the complainants bounced.
Further, the Default Committee was appointed by the DSE only after the decision of the District Forum so as to defeat the orders passed by the District Forum. Hence, the finding given by the Default Committee is of no consequence. The default took place in the year 1996 and the so-called Committee was constituted after the order passed by the District Forum in the year 2003. Further, the amounts paid by the Complainants are admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 (Mr. P.K. Wadhwa).
V. In these revision petitions, the order passed by the State Commission directing the Delhi Stock Exchange to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the loss suffered by each of the Complainants, cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, the Revision Petitions filed by the DSE are required to be rejected.
Similarly, with regard to the Revision Petitions filed by the Complainants claiming more amount on the basis of the loss suffered by them are also required to be rejected, because the maximum limit for reimbursement by the DSE from the Costumer Protection Fund is only Rupees One lakh.
In the result, the aforesaid Revision Petitions filed by the Delhi Stock Exchange as well as the Complainants are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
We make it clear that the DSE had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh in each case on the basis of the interim order passed by this Commission and the said amount was withdrawn by the individual Complainants by furnishing bank guarantee. Hence, the aforesaid bank guarantee shall be released by the Registry.
Sd/-
J.
(
M.B. SHAH )
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
..
(
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO )
MEMBER
Sd/-
..
(ANUPAM
DASGUPTA)
MEMBER