Delhi

New Delhi

CC/860/2012

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. India Bulls Securities Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.860/2012                                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh.  Anil Kumar,

S/o Sh. Harbans Lal,

938, DDA Janta Flats, New Delhi.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Indiabulls Securities Ltd.,

Through its Manager,

Regd. Office : F-60, 2^nd Floor,

Malhotra Building,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

Opposite Party.

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a customer of OP.  Complainant deposited Rs.1 lac with the OP vide DD Bearing No.265780411 dt. 3.9.2009 on monthly interest of Rs.10,000/-p.m. through one Sh. Sharad Sharma, who introduced himself to be an employee of OP.  The OP had paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainant vide cheque dt. 13.10.2009 against the interest for the month of September 2009.  Thereafter, OP had never paid any interest to the complainant against the amount deposited. The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 2.2.2012 to the OP thereby calling it to refund the amount deposited alongwith compound interest @ 10%  p.m. from October 2009.  OP neither replied to the legal notice nor had refunded the money, complainant, therefore approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.  

2.     The notice of complaint was issued to the OP, who contested the complaint and filed reply raising the  Preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint  by alleging that the complainant had bought and sold Securities with intent of earning profits , and as such he does not qualify as a  “ Consumer “ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is stated that admittedly the complainant handover the cheque bearing No.325272 dt.1.9.2009 for a sum of Rs.900/- for opening share trading account in his name and thereafter he further deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac vide DD bearing No.578041 dt. 3.9.2009 in his share trading account.  Complainant being the signatory of the share trading agreement well aware that the OP is not a bank and he had existed money in share trading account.   The OP has denied other facts stated in the complaint and has prayed for its dismissal with exemplary costs.

 3.    In support of his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. on behalf of the OP, the affidavit in evidence of Sh. Manmohan Singh, Dy. General Manager  was filed.

4.     Both parties have filed written arguments.

5.     We have heard the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

 6.    On the point of maintainability of this complaint, the essential requirement is that the complaint should have been filed by a person , or on his behalf, who is, the consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. The complaint filed by or on behalf of a person who is not a consumer under the said provision of law, is not maintainable. Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act clearly shows that if the services are hired or availed of by the person concerned/complainant for any commercial purpose then the said person is not a consumer within the meaning of  Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act. However, by virtue of Explanation to Section 2 (d) if services are hired for commercial purpose and are exclusively for the purposes of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment then, still the person concerned availing such services is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d). However, in such a case, the complainant is required to allege these facts in the complaint. (See Asaithambi versus the Company Secretary and others, Revision Petition. No. 1179 of 2012, decided by Hon’able National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 1/8/2012..

 7.    In the present case, undisputedly the purpose of investment was creation of wealth by way of sale, purchase of stocks and shares from time to time with the consent of both parties in terms of agreement executed between the parties. The transactions in stocks and shares are for commercial purpose in the light of Asaithambi's case (supra). Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. The present complaint, is therefore, not maintainable before the consumer fora and complainant may seek redressal of his grievances elsewhere before competent forum/court as per law.  In this view of the matter, there is no need to go into the other arguments raised from both sides, as the same would not alter the fate of the complaint.

 8.    In view of the above discussion, present complaint is dismissed, with the liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court for the redressal of his grievance.  Keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost of litigation. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to the record room.

        Pronounced in open Forum on   08/04/2019.

 

                             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                      PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                    MEMBER