Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/534/2014

Capt. Bikramajit Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Sehdev

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/534/2014
Date of Institution	:	11/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	18/09/2015

 

 

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu r/o 95, Sector-8, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      ICICI Bank, SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.      TVS Shriram Growth Fund, #249A, Ambujammal Street, Off. T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600018 through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arvind Sehdev, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP-1
		Sh. Vikram Singh, Counsel for OP-2 alongwith Sh. Sudhanshu Arya, Advocate.

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Capt. Bikramjit Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against ICICI Bank and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he was a client of OP-1 and used to deposit his hard-earned savings and earnings with it. 

                According to the complainant, he visited OP-1 bank and he was introduced to an investment scheme started by OP-2. He was given a very glowing and promising picture of the investment and was told that his money would grow manifolds. Trusting upon the word of OP-1, the complainant signed the documents and he was asked to make an investment commitment of Rs.25,00,000/- and then asked to pay the initial payment of Rs.3,75,000/- which was paid by him at the spot. It has been contended that the complainant was asked to sign certain documents to which he had no knowledge and he was told that the details of the investment shall be posted to him in the next 3-4 weeks, but, the same were not provided. The complainant also paid the 2^nd and 3^rd installments. According to the complainant, he received an undated notice which stated that since he had defaulted on his payment, certain deductions were being made on his amount. Thereafter the complainant sent a reply through legal notice. The complainant has contended that till date OP-2 has not returned his investment. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In its written reply OP-1, has taken a number of preliminary objections including that this Forum has no jurisdiction. It has been averred that the scheme was floated by OP-2, the complainant had also paid the investment amount to OP-2 and he was also to receive the documents from OP-2 and at best OP-1 was acting as an agent of the complainant. It has been averred that after understanding the scheme floated by OP-2, the complainant applied for investment in the same. It has been contended that the complainant is a well educated businessman who had invested the amount in the scheme of OP-2 only after understanding the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In its separate written reply, OP-2 has also taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is not a consumer as the services availed by him were for commercial purpose i.e. to earn profit. It has been admitted that the complainant paid the initial payment of Rs.3,75,000/-.  It has been denied that the complainant was asked to sign certain documents to which he had no knowledge as to the contents of the same.  It has also been denied that the copies of the documents signed by the complainant were not provided to him.  It has been averred that it is common knowledge that venture capital investments are high-risk investments though subject to the market conditions they yield high returns too.  Despite knowing all the above fully well, the complainant had voluntarily chosen to make a Capital commitment of Rs.25,00,000/- and only contributed an amount of Rs.17,50,000/-.  It has been contended that by his own actions/withdrawals/omissions, the complainant got himself declared as a defaulting contributor in accordance with clause of the Contribution Cum Subscription Agreement. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by OP-2 and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The most material question for determination in this case is whether the complainant falls under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?  Pertinently, the complainant has himself pleaded in the complaint that he was given a very glowing and promising picture of the investment and was told that his money would grow manifolds if he invests in the investment scheme started by OP-2 and assured him high returns of 24%-30% per annum from the investment. The complainant made a capital commitment of Rs.25.00 lakhs to OP-2 and he made the payment of an amount of Rs.17,50,000/-  in the following manner :-

(i)     Rs.3,75,000/- on 30.5.2008

(ii)    Rs.6,25,000/- on 4.6.2009

(iii)   Rs.7,25,000/-on 4.7.2011

The complainant did not contribute the remaining amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The copy of the investment form & contribution cum subscription agreement (Ex.R2W/1) shows that the complainant, who is a Captain and is an educated person, filled up the form of TVS Shriram growth fund, which is a registered venture capital fund and regulated by SEBI regulations. Each page of investment form & contribution cum subscription agreement (Ex.R2W/1) is signed by the complainant.  The risk factors (at page 108 of the paper book of the complainant) show that “An investment in TSG Fund involves certain considerations and high risks. Accordingly, before deciding to invest, prospective investors should carefully study the specific risks described below together with all the information contained in this Memorandum, and seek independent legal, investment and tax advice. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to the Investment Manager, or that it currently deems immaterial may also have an adverse impact on TSG Fund’s prospects and business. There can be no assurance that TSG Fund’s investment objective will be achieved, or that a Contributor will receive a return of its capital, or that a Contributor will not lose all of his investment in TSG Fund.”

7.         The circumstances show that the investment by the complainant with OP-2 was not a source of livelihood for him, but, was with a profit motive.  The complainant was a prospective investor who bought an instrument of investment from OP-2.  The amount was to be invested in speculative market.  We feel that the investment was made by the complainant to gain profit and it was for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs. It is not the case of the complainant anywhere in the complaint that he invested the amount with OP-2 for his own livelihood by way of self employment.  It must be borne in mind that disputes between the parties relating to commercial purpose are excluded under the Consumer Protection Act. In V.K. Agarwal (Dr.) Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. & Ors., I (2013) CPJ 373 (NC), relying upon some judgments, it was held that sale purchase of shares are commercial transactions, so, the complainant is not a consumer in such cases.
8.         It has been contended by the OPs that TSG fund is a unit linked fund which is outside the scope of Consumer Protection Act.  There is enough force in this contention. In Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 decided on 23.4.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission, the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

“The investment made by the petitioner/ complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

Importantly, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference.  The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, consumer complaint No.96/2011 decided on 4.7.2014 and Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.40/2011 decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. 

9.         In view of the above discussion, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Since the complainant is an educated person and has affixed his signatures on the various documents, his contention that he had no knowledge as to the contents of the said application cannot be accepted. Since the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and we do not deem it necessary to consider the remaining issues involved in the complaint.  
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Needless to say, complainant shall be at liberty to avail the other remedies available to him before any other appropriate Court/Forum. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/	Sd/-
18/09/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President