APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

ORDER

PER MR. C.VISWANATH, MEMBER

          The present First Appeal is filed under Section 19 read with Section 21 (a) (ii) of of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Appellant against Order dated 26.06.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. No. CC/17/1277.

Brief facts of the Case are as follows:-

          The Respondent, a retired person, was a member of Appellant dealing with purchase and sale of shares of various companies. On 27.01.2015, the Respondent was shocked to receive a call from Appellant on his mobile that a trade of about Rs. 29,94,896/- occurred on 23.01.2015. Immediately, vide email dated 27.01.2015, the Respondent informed the Appellant that the said transaction is bogus and unauthorized and specific request was made to reverse it. Appellant informed Respondent, vide letter dated 20.02.2015, that they have frozen the Respondent’s account due to unauthorized transaction on 23.01.2015. Appellant informed the Respondent that they had also lodged a Police Complaint with regard to this matter.

          Appellant has informed the Respondent,  vide letter dated 04.02.2015, that the Complaint was closed, as the very same was being investigated by the Police. However, the Respondent was not permitted to use his account as the account was frozen. Several reminders were sent through emails by the Respondent, but those were not replied by the Appellant. Hence, the Complaint was filed before the State Commission along with Miscellaneous Application No. MA/17/484 for condoning delay of 227 days in filing the Consumer Complaint.

          The said application filed by the Respondent was opposed by the Appellant by filing a written statement, in which it was averred that the subject matter of the Complaint cannot be a part of adjudication and determination, being a transaction occurring on the stock exchange.  The said transaction was for a commercial purpose and hence, he cannot be termed as a “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further, the limitation period starts from the very day an unauthorized transaction has taken place i.e. 23.01.2015. In fact, the transaction was for a huge amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. Respondent should not have waited for 256 days after effective cause of action. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to preside over this complaint. Therefore, the Appellant prayed to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application no. MA/17/484 with costs.

          Miscellaneous Application no. MA/17/484 was allowed by the State Commission, vide order dated 26.06.2018, subject to payment of delaying costs of Rs. 1000/- payable to the Appellant on or before the next date.

          Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant has filed the First Appeal before this Commission                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   on the following grounds:-

• The respondent has failed to disclose any valid reasons for not filing the compliant within the limitation period.

• The State Commission has failed to disclose any justifiable and cogent reason for condoning the delay in its order.

          We have gone through the order passed by the State Commission in Miscellaneous Application no. MA/17/484 placed before us and heard the arguments.

          As per the findings of the State Commission, the Respondent has sent last email to the Appellant on 10.07.2017 and complaint was filed on 04.10.2017. Further, Respondent was waiting for reply of the Appellant, but in vain. Ultimately, the Respondent decided to file the Consumer Complaint which is based on a continuous cause of action. Thus, in the interest of justice, the State Commission allowed  Miscellaneous Application No.  MA/ 17/484, condoning the delay of 227 days with costs. 

          In our view, the State Commission has rightly allowed the application for condoning the delay in filing the complaint with costs.

          In view of the above, the present First Appeal filed by the Appellant, is dismissed with a direction to the Appellant to appear before the State Commission and defend his case on merits.