Shri M.M. Sundaram has filed the instant consumer complaint alleging that he had a trading account with M/s Fortis Securities Ltd. (now renamed as Religare Securities Ltd.). It is alleged that the complainant was trading in shares through the aforesaid company. M/s Fortis Securities Ltd. (now Religare Securities Ltd.) with a view to defraud the complainant opened a bogus account in the name of the complainant in the HDFC Bank Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and several unauthorized trading transactions of shares were done in the said account causing a loss of Rs.3,15,30,881.30 to the complainant during the period w.e.f. 12.1.2016 to 13.6.2016. It is contended that the act of the opposite party Bank in opening of the account in the name of the complainant without verification amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the consumer complaint.

2.       Opposite party bank on being served with the notice, resisted the complaint by filing written statement. Besides denying the allegations on merits, opposite party took preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint is barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that if at all the complainant has any grievance, it is against M/s Religare Securities Ltd. with whom the complainant had dealings and there is no cause of action against the opposite party.

3.       Both the parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their allegations.

4.       Learned Shri A. Ganesh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant has contended that this is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank, as opposite party bank had opened the subject account in the name of the complainant in violation of RBI guidelines regarding verification of the person requesting for opening the account. It is submitted that the aforesaid account was opened in collusion with M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.) with a view to siphon the money from the trading account of the complainant.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has contended that on bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint it would be seen that there is no relationship of customer and service provider between the complainant and the bank. It is contended that if at all the complainant has a grievance it is against M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.) with whom the complainant had opened the trading account for shares and securities.

7.       I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. On perusal of the complaint it is clear that it is not the case of the complainant that he opened the account in the opposite party bank. On the contrary the allegation is that the complainant had trading account with M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.) and the said company with a view to defraud the complainant opened a bogus account in his name in collusion with the opposite party bank. From this it is evident that there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and the opposite party, as such opposite party cannot be termed as service provider to the complainant and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.

8.       Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that complainant has a locus standi to file the complaint, then also he is not a consumer because admittedly the deficiency in service by the complainant is in relation to a commercial purpose i.e. his share trading account with M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.).

9.       It is pertinent to note that Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act which defines the term consumer for the purpose of the Act carves out an exception in the definition of consumer by providing that if the goods are bought or services are hired or availed for commercial purpose, then the person concerned shall be excluded from the definition of the consumer.

10.     From the tone and tanner of the complaint, it appears that the main grievance of the complainant is against M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.) which allegedly cheated the complainant by opening a bogus account in the name of the complainant in HDFC Bank Ltd. Despite that the complainant for the reasons best known to him has not opted to proceed against M/s Religare Securities Ltd. (previously Fortis Securities Ltd.).

11.     In view of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed with the observation that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to seek legal remedy available to him.