Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Ms.Swati Deshpande-Advocate for the complainant.
The facts as stated in the complaint are to be taken into consideration on their face value and one has to see whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and whether dispute in question could be termed as ‘consumer dispute’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for brevity). The facts as stated show that complainant had invested the funds into the various mutual funds as listed in para 4 of the complaint during the period 23/01/2008 to 10/06/2008. Opponent no.1- Indusind Bank Ltd. (herein after referred as ‘Indusind Bank’) was given a power of attorney by the complainant to make transactions in this respect and Indusind bank accordingly acted in that capacity while investing the amounts in various mutual funds on behalf of the complainant.
It is further alleged by the complainant that on 09/01/2010 he visited India (he is residing in USA) and on the next date of his arrival when he visited opponent no.1- Indusind bank, he came to know that bogus account was opened in his name with opponent no.2-Axis bank and the mutual fund investments referred above were got redeemed using the said account. Obviously, it was a case of fraud as alleged by the complainant. The complainant made further enquiry and then this consumer complaint came to be filed.
It is alleged against opponent no.2-Axis bank that without adhering to the norms of Know Your Customer (KYC), said bank acted in prejudicial manner to the interest of the complainant while allowing the other person to open the account in complainant’s name in their bank and then facilitating to get redeemed mutual fund investments of the complainant, supra. Other opponents namely Reliance Mutual Fund, DSP Black Rock Mutual fund are the one in which the investments are made and opponent no.5-Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd. is the company through which the mutual funds operate.
As far as opponent no.1- Indusind bank is concerned, there is no element of hiring of service, when it is alleged that said bank was given power of attorney and said bank acted on behalf of the complainant to do investments in mutual funds on behalf of the complainant. So in no way opponent no.1- Indusind bank is a service provider.
Opponent no.2- Axis bank comes in a picture in a different manner. There is no hiring of service of any kind from this bank by the complainant. If any fraud is practiced, redress can be obtained elsewhere and not in a Consumer Fora. Same is the case in respect of other opponents.
Furthermore, case as presented by the complainant reflects that it is a case of investment and for which services, if any, of the opponent no.1-Indusind Bank were hired, then under these circumstances, since hiring of any service is for commercial purpose (investment in mutual funds is for earning either loss or profit), the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within a meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. A useful reference on the point can be made to the decision of the apex court in the matter of Economic Transport Organization v/s. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.& Anr. 2010 CTJ 361(SC)(CP).
For the reasons stated above, we find that no prima facie case is made out which warrants any answer as a consumer dispute by the opponents. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Complaint is not admitted and stands rejected, accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 10th August, 2011.
