IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 12.11.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.296/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Daizy Thomas 1. Hedge Equities Ltd., 1205,
Nadavallie Kizhakkethil Dalamal Tower
Venmoney P.O. Nariman Point, Mumbai –
Chengannur Taluk 400 021, represented by its
Alappuzha District – 689 509 Managing Director
(By Adv. K.N. Azhakesan)
2. Sri. Alex. K. Babu
Managing Director
Hedge Equities Ltd., Hedge
House, Mamangalam
Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 025
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon – for
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. Hedge Equities Ltd., Adoor
Branch, Represented by its
Branch Manager, Chittundayil
Shopping Complex, Near
Parthasarathi Temple
Konnamankara, Adoor – 690 523
4. Rajesh Kumar, Branch Manager
Hedge Equities Ltd.,
-do- -do-
Now residing at Puthiyamadathil
Thekkethil, Venmoney P.O.
Chengannur, Alappuzha – 689 509
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are doing trade practice much for the purpose of promoting their sale by adopting an unfair method by making advertisement which falsely represents that the services are of standard quality. Thus the opposite parties are playing unfair trade practice and due to such action the complainant has suffered much damage.
2. The opposite parties filed objection challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to the opposite parties, complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel for opposite parties relied on the following decisions rendered by the National Commission:-
1) In Trust of the India V. Sabitri Devi Agarval reported in II 2000 CPJ NC 260 National Commission.
2) In Vijayakumar V. Indusind Bank reported in II 2012 CPJ NC 260 National Commission.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant cannot be termed as a regular trader in purchase and sale of shares. She is doing the trading of shares for getting profit to be used for the future of her 2 daughters as she is a house-wife, thus it is for livelihood and nothing else. 4. It is well settled principle law that the dispute with respect to the shares does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Reference may be made to the case law cited as III (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments Page 75 (NC), II (1993) Consumer Protection Judgments page 216 (N.C.) and I (1994) Consumer Protection Judgments page 27(N.C.). Investors investing money in share trading with expectancy of earning profit also undertake huge risk of loss for which no one could be held responsible. In the instant case complainant admitted in the complaint that the complainant and her husband were too eager to ascertain the growth of the amounts invested in the first opposite party company and they could get information from the company that their investment is being profitably marketed and the value of their investment was being increased. The Hon’ble National Commission in Vijayakumar Vs. Indus Ind Bank II2012 CPJ 181 as held, “Moreover regular trading in the purchase and sale of share is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit. This activity is purely commercial one and is not covered under the Act.” In the instant case the complainant had been trading in the share business and the same being a commercial activity, the complainant would not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
