Case No. 343/10

          We have gone through the complaint very carefully and perused the material available on record.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant pleading therein that the complainant was maintaining De- Mat Account No. 0218688 for investment in shares in IDBI Bank. It is stated that the complainant in 2001 purchased 1400 shares of the OP from open market; OP floated a ‘buy back’ scheme and arbitrarily sent a Demand Draft on its own to the share holder. The complainant is entitled to all the benefits including unpaid dividends on the 1000 share as well as unpaid dividends and bonus on the remaining 400 shares from 2002 onwards; that such conduct of OP of not paying unpaid dividends and bonuses on the aforesaid shares to the complainant despite repeated requests and demands proves the malafide intention of OP and amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant suffered loss of his hard earned money. Hence, this complaint.

OP in its written statement has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act); that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present dispute pertains to title of shares by way of transfer, and/or transmissions of shares etc. and is within the realm of the Companies Act, 1956 and appropriate Forum to adjudicate the grievances is Company Law Board.

          In A. Asaithambi vs. M/S Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Ors. Revision Petition No. 1179 of 2012, National Commission vide its order dated 01.08.2012 observed:

“9.     The complainant has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that he is dealing with shares business as self-employment for livelihood. Nor it has been alleged that the services provided by respondents were being availed of exclusively for the purpose of his livelihood, by means of self-employment, by the complainant.

It must be borne in mind that disputes between the parties relating to commercial purposes are excluded under the Act. This view stands fortified by a recent authority of this Commission, reported in Vijay Kumar Vs. Indusind Bank, II 2012 CPJ 181 (NC).

In Steel City Securities Ltd. vs. G.P. Ramesh, I (2014) CPJ 576 (NC), National Commission held that trading in shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits.  Therefore the complainant is not a consumer.

In Balvantkumar Gyanchand Mittal vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd., II (2015) CPJ 535 (NC), National Commission held that trading in shares and speculative business are outside purview of consumer.  Therefore the complainant is not a consumer.

In Ashutosh Pankajbhai Desai vs. Bharatkumar Ranchhoddas Rana, I (2014) CPJ 324 (NC), R.R. Equity Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, III (2014) CPJ 396 (NC) and Krishan Lal Lalra vs. Religare Securities Ltd., II (2015) CPJ 338 (NC) National Commission held that regular trading in sale and purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits.

The complainant admits that he was investing in shares and has also prayed for direction to OP to pay the pending dividends on 1000 shares from 2002 onwards along with interest of 18% per annum which comes to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- which cannot be for earning his livelihood.

In view of the aforesaid judgments and the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission transaction carried on by the complainants are purely commercial in nature. The allegations regarding arbitrary and illegal conduct of OP in retaining the dividends and bonuses of his shares is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The complaint is therefore dismissed.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 19.11.19.