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. 135/2012
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. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Party |
Post Bag No. 4371, Kalkaji, Head Office, New Delhi 110 019, Rep. by its Managing Director & CEO, Gary Bennet.
2. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 7th Floor, Vankarath Towers, Palarivattom Bye-pass Junction, Pipeline Road, Cochin – 682 024, Rep. by Senior Branch Manager. |
| (Op.pts by Adv. Nelson J. Manayil, Room No. 28, Infant Jesus Building, Opp. High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. At the threshold, the opposite parties challenged the maintainability of this complaint stating that at the volition of the complainant, money has been invested in the share market and the result of the same is depending on the fluctuations in the market which is speculative and not in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and so this Forum is not to entertain such a contention. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ramlal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC).
2. The complainant contended that this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, since per se, deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the opposite parties in investing the amount of the complainant in share market. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Admittedly, the complainant joined a scheme of the opposite parties namely 'Amsure Growth Fund' and the opposite parties invested the same in the share market. The up and downs in the share market would affect the prospects of the investment which is speculative in nature.
3. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Unit Trust of India Vs. Sabita Devi Agarwal II (2000) CPJ NC (4), “the Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transaction or losses.”
4. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ramlal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Alliznz 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.”
5. The above pronouncements of the Hon'ble National Commission squarely apply in the case at hand. In view of the above, we are only to the conclusion that the remedy of the complainant lies elsewhere. The proceedings in this complaint stands closed with a direction to the complainant to receive back the complaint and the related documents to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
