Delhi

West Delhi

CC/09/977

PRAKASH CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIA INFOLINE - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO.977/2009

Sh. Prakash Chand  Gupta

S/o Late Shri Kishori Lal Gupta

R/o L-236, Shashtri Nagar,

Delhi-110 052                                                                ..…. Complainant

VERSUS

M/s India  Infoline Com (P) Ltd.                                  

71/3, Najafgarh Raod ,

Industrial Area, Moti Nagar,

New Delhi                                                                       ….Opposite Party

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant had applied  in Reliance Power IPO  vide application No. 55010056 dated 18.01.2008 and also  attached cheque of Rs. 25,875/- bearing No. 884039 drawn on State Bank of India, Shakur Basti, Delhi.  The OP neither allotted the shares nor refunded amount for a longtime after the allotment date. When complainant did not receive any response from OP, he wrote letters to OP to know about the status of his application.  On inquiry the complainant learned that the cheque dated 18.01.2008 in the sum of Rs. 28,875/-was cleared on 21.01.2008 towards collection of Reliance Power IPO applied by one Mr. Nishchit Kumar vide   bank Serial No. 428186.  Despite requests the OP did not refund the amount nor did it furnish the shares, therefore, the present complaint. 

2.     OP filed written statement taking preliminary objection that there existed no relationship of consumer and  service provider and as such  the complainant  was not a consumer under provision of Consumer Protection  Act.  It is further stated that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the parties because IPO issues were released by Reliance Power Limited wherein it has been specifically mentioned that all future communications in connection with this application should be addressed to the Registrar.   On merits it has been stated that OP after accepting the application form of complainant  only acted as a forwarding agency or the Syndicate  of Reliance  Power Ltd. as stated  in the advertisement.  As regards non allotment  of shares or refund of money the complainant should  have approached the officials of Karvy  Computershare Ltd., Plot No.  17-24  Vithal Rao Nagar , Madhpur, Hyderabad as prescribed  in IPO issued  by  Reliance Power Ltd. It is prayed that for the reasons stated in  the reply the complaint should be rejected.

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.  On the other hand Shri Pawan Kumar Hira Manager Legal and Compliance filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. He mentioned documents Exhibit O.P. 1/1. and O.P. 1/2.   Both parties also filed its respective written submission. 

4.     We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.     The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled of the relief claimed or not.  The OPs have taken a categorical stand in the reply that there existed no  relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  It has been vehemently stressed by counsel for OP that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  In support  in his submissions he referred to case title M/s  Steel City Securities Ltd. Vs Shri  G.P. Ramesh  wherein the Hon’ble National Commission while  relying on its own judgment reported in Vijay Kr. Vs Indusin Bank ,II(2012) CPJ 181(NC)  held that trading in the shares is a commercial transaction and such a petitioner would not be a consumer  as per section 2(I)(d) of Consumer Protection  Act. 

        To appreciate the submissions of the Counsel for the parties  it would be appropriate to understand  the true meaning  and import of Section 2(I)) (d) of Consumer Protection  Act which is reproduced as under:-     

(d)      “Consumer” means any person who,-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);

 

(Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;)

 

6.     The bare  look at the aforesaid  provision makes it abundantly  clear that commercial activity  takes the consumer  out of the  applicability of Section 2 (I)(d).  The complainant could have  availed  the explanation  to section 2(I)(d) ,  had he pleaded in the complaint  that he carried out the transaction to earn his  livelihood .  However the complainant has nowhere pleaded this fact.     

7.     Keeping in view the discussion stated above complainant  cannot be stated to be a consumer with the meaning of Section  2(I)(d), therefore, the complaint is dismissed.   Parties are left to bare their own cost.   

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

 

Announced this___29th___ day of __May _____ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                    

  PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER