THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 51-14
Date of Institution : 28.1.2014
Date of Decision : 27.03.2015
Hardial Mehta son of Sh. B.R. Mehta, resident of 21, Gali No. 9, Bhawani Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Karvy Computer share Private Limited, 72-A, Taylor Road,AGA Heritage,Opp. Gandhi Ground, Amritsar through its Managing Director/Director/Principal officer
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Vikram Puri,Adv
For the opposite party : Sh.D.K.Kashyap,Adv
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Hardial Mehta under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is a retired employee from Kakkar Hospital and he invested his amount in mutual funds of J.M. Financial Co.. The complainant obtained 5000 mutual fund units of J.M. Financial Company @ Rs. 10/- per unit total amounting to Rs. 50000/- in January 2008 to earn his livelihood. At the time of purchasing the said mutual funds, the opposite party assured that these mutual funds are Non-Transferable /Non transacted and there will be no reduction in the mutual funds. The complainant received half yearly consolidated mutual funds statement on 30th September 2013 and has come to know that the mutual funds have been reduced to 899.835 units. After receipt of said statement, the complainant visited the opposite party many times and requested them to apprise them about the reduction of units from 5000 to 899.835 , but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to bring the mutual funds to its original position i.e. to the tune of 5000 units in place of 899.835. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Initially opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.2.2014 but later on Sh. Deepak Kumar Kashyap, Adv appeared and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage i.e. at the stage of evidence vide order dated 5.8.2014.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter Ex.C-2, copy of unit balance as on 30.9.2013 Ex.C-3, copy of statement Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 7.1.1997 Ex.C-5.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Ex.OP1, copy of newspaper cutting Ex.OP2, copy of acknowledgment Ex.OP3, copy of account statement Ex.OP4.
5. We have carefully gone through the averment of the complainant, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.averment of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant invested his amount in mutual funds and obtained 5000 shares in J.M.Financial Company to the opposite party @ Rs. 10/- per share/mutual fund ; total amounting to Rs. 50000/- in January 2008. The complainant alleges that the opposite party assured the complainant that these mutual funds are non-transferable /non transacted and there will be no reduction in the mutual funds . When the complainant received half yearly consolidated mutual funds sttement in respect of unit balance as on 30.9.2013, he came to know that the mutual funds obtained by the complainant numbering 5000 have been reduced to 899.835 units. The complainant approached the opposite party to explain this position but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant invested his amount in J.M Agri and Infra Funds Growth Plan vide Folio No. 7557080222 on 16.1.2008 for 5000 units (value of unit is Rs. 10/-) i.e. for the value of Rs. 50000/-. Thereafter J.M.Agri and Infra Funds Scheme was merged or switched to JM Basic Funds Growth Plan on 1.4.2011 . At that time the value of the unit was Rs. 2.4818 as per market rate . Before switching/merging JM Financial Mutual Funds published one notice in Financial Express on 2.3.2011 that JM Agri and Infra Funds Scheme is merging/switching to JM Basic Funds Growth Plan and accordingly intimated all its investors,copy of publication is Ex.OP2 and acknowledgement of above intimation is Ex.OP3. The basic structure of new scheme of JM Basic Funds Growth Plan on 1.4.2011 i.e. at the time of switching/merging the amount of complainant is Rs. 12,409/-, net asset value of per unit is Rs. 13.793 and total units comes to 899.835. At present the total value of the units is Rs. 16575/41 paise, copy of the statement is Ex.OP4. The entire investment has been made in the aforesaid units with the consent of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the complainant invested the amount in shares i.e. in open market in order to get profit/speculative gain, which amounts to commercial transaction , as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer, so the present complaint is not maintainable.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant invested his amount in shares i.e. in the open market in order to earn profit/speculative gain as he himself has admitted that he obtained 5000 mutual funds/units of JM Financial company in January2008 amounting to Rs. 50000/- @ Rs. 10/- per unit. It has been held by the Hon'ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in case Prime Investor Services Vs. Sudama Nachanmal Mandhan 2015(1) CLT 179 that where the complainant is engaged in trading of shares and securities and not for his livelihood by means of self employment, it was held that the complainant is not the consumer as per provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer ProtectionAct. If the services are availed purely for commercial purposes then the person availing the services is not a consumer. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd and another in Revision Petition No. 658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Others decided on 23.04.2013 that where the investment made by the petitioner/complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a 'consumer' of the opposite party. Hon'ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No. 162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has 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 Hon'ble State Commission, dismissed the appeal.
9. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is retired employee of Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Charitable Trust from where he retired on 7.1.1997, as such he has invested his retiral benefits in the form of shares in order to earn his livelihood . Here we do not agree with this contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant because the complainant had retired in January 1997 . Had he invested the amount in shares in 1997 , he is supposed to have invested his retiral benefits in 1997 or 1998 in order to earn his livelihood . But he has invested this amount in 2008 which cannot be said to have been invested by the complainant in order to earn his livelihood.
10. Resultantly we hold that the complainant is not a consumer, as such the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file the case before the appropriate court/authority/Forum. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
27.3.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
