Maharashtra

DCF, South Mumbai

CC/60/2012

DR. SAT PAUL PANSOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.S.B.C. ASSET. MANAGEMENT (I) PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2012

ORDER

CC NO. 60 Of 2012   1. DR. SAT PAUL PANSOTRA FL-D/103,HAWARES GULMOHAR,PLOT NO.52,SECTOR NO.20.KHARCHAR.NAVI MUMBAI-400210 MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. H.S.B.C. ASSET. MANAGEMENT (I) PVT. LTD. 314, D.N. ROAD,FORT,MUMBAI-400001 MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     SHRI.S.B.DHUMAL. HONORABLE PRESIDENT   Shri S.S. Patil , HONORABLE MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER Order Below An Exhibit – 1    PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :   1) Heard Complainant in person.   2) It is the case of the Complainant that on 19/01/2010 he has invested an amount of Rs.6 Lacs in H.S.B.C. Dynamic Fund/Dividend (Scheme). Prior to that on 08/09/2008, he had invested Rs.49,000/- and on 16/09/2008 Rs.22,000/- in H.S.B.C. Dynamic Fund Growth (Scheme). On 03/03/2008, he invested Rs.1 Lac in H.S.B.C. Small Cap Fund (Growth). It is alleged by the Complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and thereby he has suffered financial loss.   3) As mentioned above, the Complainant invested huge sum in Mutual Fund of H.S.B.C. The investment is of speculative nature. It is clear that the transactions mentioned in the complaint are commercial transactions and therefore, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.

[ SHRI.S.B.DHUMAL. HONORABLE] PRESIDENT   [ Shri S.S. Patil , HONORABLE] MEMBER