Date of Complaint : 28.05.2014
Date of Order :02.03.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 337 / 2014
THIS WEDNESDAY 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2016
Anantharaman Srinivasan,
Plot No.42/2, Door No.1,
3rd Cross Bajanai Koil Street,
Hasthinapuram,
Chennai – 64. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. The Chairman, M/s. Networth Commodities & Investments Ltd., Reg. Office 1001/1002, 10th Floor, Atlanta Center, Opp. Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Geregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. 2. The Branch Manager, M/s. Networth Commodities & Investments Ltd., Heera Panna Commercial 2nd Floor, New No.14, Old No.124/9, G.N. Chetty Road, Off Habihulla Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. . .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : Party in person.
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.23,945/- being the balance amount in the complainant’s advance brokerage account and also to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- for the loss suffered by the complainant and also Rs.5,00,000/ as compensation towards mental agony along with cost of the complaint
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 2.12.2014
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant in person.
4. The complainant contended that he joined with the opposite party as a customer on 25.1.2013 to do commodities transaction to buy and sell commodities items in future markets. He is doing this as a means of his livelihood and not doing for others. While opening his account with the opposite party it was agreed that the brokerage charges would be 0.03% but they started charges 0.05% after a few transaction, which is arbitrary. The opposite party also transferred a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant’s account on 14.2.2013 to Advance Brokerage account.
5. The complainant also contended that Chennai branch office closes everyday at 7.00 p.m. though the other brokers and MCX Market remain open till 11.30 p.m. Since the number of transactions and fluctuations in prices are heavy only from 6.30 p.m. to 11.30 pm, when US market remains open, the complainant was unable to do transactions and he lost heavily in commodities transactions by more than Rs.45,000/- in February 2013. Hence he terminated his relationship with the opposite party as per rules and regulations of the MCX. But the opposite parties are illegally withholding his money of Rs.23,945/ in Advance brokerage account which is a clear violation of MCX rules. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.23,945/- being the balance amount in the complainant’s Advance Brokerage Account and also to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/ for the loss suffered by the complainant and also Rs.5,00,000/ as compensation towards mental agony along with cost of the complaint.
6. The contention of the complainant reveals that he had availed the services of the opposite parties for buying and selling of commodities which is purely profit motivated. But his grievance is that the opposite parties are charging higher brokerage charges as well as their office was closed at 7.00 p.m. while other MCX office were opened till 11.30 pm. Due to which he had incurred a loss of Rs.45,000/- in the said transaction. His further more grievance is that although he terminated his relationship with opposite party they are illegally withholding his money of Rs.23,945/-. Whereas as per Ex.A5 i.e. Terms and conditions signed by complainant it is found that he paid Rs.25,000/- as subscription fee of the scheme and in Clause (d) of the terms and conditions it is stated that “ In event of constituent opting to terminate the scheme prior to the expiry the subscription fee shall be forfeited.”
7. Although the complainant has raised certain allegations against the opposite party in his complaint and the opposite party also never come forward to defend their case, the document on record reveals that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite party for buying and selling of commodities like Gold, Silver, and Copper etc. which was purely intended for profit motive and commercial transaction.
As per Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 A consumer is a person who
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
As per the above clause the compliant itself is not maintainable before this forum, since the complainant does not come under the purview of the consumer. Ex.A1 i.e. legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party, and also Ex.A7 i.e. email transactions clearly shows that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite parties for buying and selling of Gold, Silver and Copper etc. which is purely commercial and profit motive.
8. Although the complaint has been taken on file initially, this forum has discretion to decide the maintainability of the complaint at any stage. As such now we incline that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer.
9. Hence we are of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum, since the complainant is not consumer as per Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and services availed by him from the opposite parties is purely commercial one and profit motive.
10. As discussed above, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and is not maintainable before this forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 1.3.2014 - Copy of notice to the opposite party and Ack. received.
Ex.A2- - Copy of Client Enrollment application.
Ex.A3- - Copy of Brokerage Tariff details.
Ex.A4- 08.2.13 &
11.2.13 - Copy of contract note.
Ex.A5- - Copy of terms and conditions.
Ex.A6- - Copy of ledger statement
Ex.A7- - Copy of email correspondence.
Ex.A8- - Copy of MCX Rules.
Ex.A9- 8.4.13 &
11.4.13 - Copy of letters requesting the member
Opposite parties’ side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
