| Complaint Case No. CC/49/2017 |
| | | | 1. Keka Saha | | D/o Nikhil Kumar Saha, 3/1/1, dhakuria Station Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700031. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Bulls Brothers Commodity Pvt. Ltd. and 5 others | | 22B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Tirhatti, P.S - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700073. And at J13/93, Flat No. H-2, Sanjay Nagar, Chouka Ghat, Varanasi - 221001, Uttar Pradesh. | | 2. Sri Manish Singh (Director) | | 10/A/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Rishra, Flat no. 402, Howrah - 712248. | | WB | | 3. Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, Director | | J13/83, Flat no. 32, 3rd Floor, Vanshira Apartment, Cotton Mill Colony, Chouaka Ghat, Varanasi - 221001. | | UP | | 4. Ashwani Kumar Singh | | C/27/274, 4th floor, Dr. Jai Singh Building, Maldahya, Varanashi - 221001. | | UP | | 5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sahoo | | C/o SMC Global Securities Ltd., 18, Rabindra Sarani, Poddar Court, Gate No. 4th and 5th Floor, P.S. - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001. | | 6. Multi Commodity Exchange of India (MCX) | | 3B, Lal Bazar Street, Sri R. N. Mukherjee House, 3rd Floor, P.S. - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Order No. 2 dt. 17/02/2017 Today is fixed for admission hearing. Heard the ld. Lawyer for the complainant and perused the materials on record. The complainant has stated in her petition that she invested Rs.2,00,000/- to o.ps. Complainant also stated in her petition that in spite of her repeated requests o.ps did not give any document relating to her investment. But that plea cannot be maintainable since complainant received the welcome letter on 29.05.2013 and therefore the allegation of non providing the document against her investment arose on 29.05.2013. Now this plea cannot be taken since barred by limitation. Moreover it is curious enough that the complainant invested a lump sum amount without receiving any document to that effect from the o.ps. Complainant also stated that she invested the amount for high interest rate but what was the rate of interest and what was the assured matured amount it was not stated in the petition. No cogent document has been annexed to that effect. At the time of admission hearing ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that complainant received the monthly interest but she could not say that what was the amount of monthly interest and the complainant received the same how long. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that complainant opted for arbitration proceeding and ultimately Senior Executive-IG and Arbitration by their observation informed the complainant on 22.06.2015 that arbitration reference filed by complainant against the captioned member was closed since no trade had been taken place in the trading account of the complainant with the captioned Member. By which provision complainant preferred an application before the arbitration division that had not been disclosed by the complainant since no agreement or any other related document had been filed by the complainant. From the document annexed with the complaint petition we find that the Trade I.D. had been provided to the complainant. From the document itself its is evident that complainant invested the amount for online trading and that is for commercial purpose to earn profit. Though complainant mentioned in the petition of complaint that complainant invested the amount for earning her livelihood , in order to establish that the complainant invested the amount for earning her livelihood it is bounden duty of the complainant to prove the same by producing cogent evidence. However, she has failed to do so. Therefore complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning and scope of 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,1986. In view of above the present case is rejected in limini. | |
