DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 25.01.2024.
CC/33/2024
JAYA. P, D/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN, - COMPLAINANT
SREERAGAM, PARAMESH NAGAR,
OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.
(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
VS
CME GROUP, ACCOUNT DEPARTMENT -OPPOSITE PARTY
BAGAMANE LAUREL,
TRIDIB BUILDING,
CAUVERY COLONY, GM PALYA,
C.V.RAMANNAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 093.
ORDER
BY SRI. SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
On 30.11.2023, the complainant received a message from an anonymous number in Whatsapp describing themselves as promoters of Instagram to generate more followers and to get more popularity in Instagram. They offered Rs.2000/- to Rs.30,000/- per day just by promoting instagram and by electronic trading or speculation in crypto currencies. The complainant followed it and she received Rs.650/- in her account by promoting instagram.
On the 1st day of December, they sent the link of the opposite party, CME Group and informed that all trading/speculation would be done through this company’s website. The complainant sent Rs.1,000/- for the first trading and after that all trading procedures were done through opposite party’s website. She did five trades on the 1st day of December. For that, she sent a total amount of Rs.1,47,000/- in the trade and they promised a gain of Rs.27,63,087-. But she did not receive the money sent by her or any trading profit.
The opposite party provided 30% profit on the first two days to gain belief and later they cheated her without giving any money. Now, their website is not functioning. They made her to continue with trading compulsorily by saying that if she withdraws in between, she will loss all money. The money which she invested was made out of loans taken from others.
The complainant suffered great mental stress due to loss of complete savings. So, she filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to a pay a total amount of Rs.27,63,087/- including refund of the money and compensation for false promises, mental stress suffered by the complainant together with other expenses.
2. After filing of this complaint, the case was posted to be called in open court for informing the complainant that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The complainant was present and informed.
3. The present complaint relates to the trading done by the complainant and failure on the part of the opposite party to pay the profit out of the trading to the complainant. From the pleadings, it is clear that, the complainant, on believing the promise made by the opposite party entered into trading through their website to make profit. The money paid by the complainant to the opposite party is fee for trading through their website. It cannot be taken as “consideration” for the services rendered by the opposite party. The failure on the part of the opposite party to refund the money spent by the complainant together with profit cannot be considered as ‘Deficiency in Service’. Eventhough it involves an element of unfair trade practice, it does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as ‘Trading for profit’ cannot be considered as service. Further it involves elements of cheating and fraud.
Hence, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as per the definition under Section 2(1)(ii) of the consumer protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
