The fact as stated in the complaint is that the compliant opened Demate account under the trading code 509822/DP before the respondent/Ops at Malda branch office, English Bazar for encashment of two infrastructure bond of Rs.10,000/- each total Rs.20,000/-, Complainant also purchased “Yes Bank” share of Rs.30,000 so in total Rs.50,000/- amount remained in Demate account of trading. But local karvey office Malda did not arranged to transfer the above amount in savings bank account number of axis Bank Malda.  The complainant made an application to the Ops.  But OP No. 1 and 2 personally dealt with this account. So the complainant felt pain and agony for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the OP No.1 and 2. Hence the complainant prays a claim of Rs.50,000/- with interest from this commission.

OP No.3 filed the W.V. with the contention that this complainant is not consumer because he paid no money as fees as charged by SEBI, who is a statutory body and does not render any service to the investor for any function performed. More over this Op No. 3 had passed an order against karvey stock broking ltd. that they are misusing client’s securities in violation of SEBI act and not to give any power of attorney to Karvey by the depositors. They also directed to take disciplinary action and proceeding against Karvey.  This OP No. 3 got a complaint form Nibedita Ghosh and complaint was forwarded to Bombay stock exchange as per procedure. Karvey stock broking   Ltd. was expelled from membership of exchange. The exchange is in process of scrutinizing the claims of the clients of Karvey. It will be placed before the member of committee of exchange and then it sent to investor protection fund of exchange.  So this complaint should be dismissed against them.

 In order to success, the husband of the complainant   examined himself   and filed the Xerox copy of infrastructure  bonds and Lawyers letter for encashment of bond to the company  and SBI , and form of opening Demate account.

          OPs adduced no evidence.

 Decision

This commission perused the exparte testimony of the complainant and Xerox copy’s of papers as filed by.

The Xerox copies obviously indicated the opening of Demate account by the deceased complainant and her purchase of infrastructure bonds. But this commission does not consider this complainant as Consumer behind this transaction either with the OP No. 1 and 2 or with 3.  Hiring of services for consideration is a condition to make a person consumer.

In respect of op 3 it is a statutory body and do not render any service on receiving any consideration under this act. It is a statutory body discharging duties where no consideration is paid.

The party who is performing statutory duties cannot be held liable, or the service cannot be termed as deficient because no consideration is paid by the complainant.

This complainant since deceased purchased share or bond whichever it may be, that was for his/her personal gain when he/she did not purchase any commodity or any service for any commodity by any valued consideration. 

In respect of share purchase or bond purchase investors are merely be considered as a member of any proprietor of the company or any cooperative society who received consideration in the way of dividend or debenture etc. of the company. He/she is not a purchaser in the sense under CP Act, he/she is merely be considered as investor for any financial gain.

      As a result complaint fails. 

Hence Order

That the complaint petition is dismissed.  No order of cost is made.