BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 07/03/2012
Date of Order : 21/12/2013
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 136/2012
Between
Sonia K. Paul, | :: | Complainant |
W/o. Judy, Keezhacheril House, Puthencruz, Vadavucode, Ernakulam, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Holder Judy Joseph. | | (By Adv. Sabu Thozhuppadan.K, M/s. Lawyers’Guild, XL/328, Jose Junction, Durbar Hall Road, Kochi - 16) |
And
1. LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Party |
4th Floor Industrial Assurance Building, Opp. Church Gate Station, Mumbai – 400 020. 2. LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Jeevan Prakash, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011, Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager. |
| (Op.pts by Adv. P.D. Joseph, Perayil, Janatha Road, Palarivattom, Cochin - 25) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The complainant joined a scheme of the opposite parties by name LIC MF TOP HUNDRED FUND GROWTH PLAN by investing Rs. 3 lakhs. It is stated that had the opposite parties invested the money in the share market properly, the complainant would have got more profit. It is also stated that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,80,793/- together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The opposite parties vehemently and vigorously challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant has engaged in speculative business and so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ramlal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC)
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and went through the documents on record. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ramlal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) has observed that, “policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market which is for speculative gain, complaint does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.” Further in Unit Trust of India Vs. Sabita Devi Agarwal II (2000) CPJ NC (4) held that, “the Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transaction or losses.”
4. In view of the authoritative pronouncement on the same, we are only not to entertain this complaint in this Forum. We close the proceedings in this Forum with a direction to the complainant to receive back the complaint and the related documents and approach the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
