IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 30th day of September, 2015
Filed on 02.03.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.66/2012
between
Complainant: - Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Simon Thomas 1. M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
Sharon, Cheppad Post Thiruvananthapuram Branch
Cheppad Village Rohini Building, Panavila Junction
Alappuzha – 690 507 Trivandrum – 1
(By Adv. K. George) (By Adv. Prathap. G. Padickal)
2. Sri. Anil Ambani, Chief Executive
Officer, M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
11th Floor, R-Tech I.T. Park
Western Express Highway
Goregaon East, Mumabi – 400 063
3. Sri. Vino. M. George, Area Head
M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
Ernakulam
4. Sri. Brijesh Mathew
Equity Research Head
M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
Rohini Building, Panavila Junction
Trivandrum – 1
5. Sri. Anoop Somasekharan
M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
Dealer, Rohini Building, Panavila Junction, Trivandrum – 1
6. Sri. Bijesh, Relationship Manager
M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd.
Rohini Building, Panavila Junction, Trivandrum – 1
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is working at Sudan in Africa as a Supervisor in one of the Oil Company thereon. He is in India four times in a year. The complainant opened a Demat Account on May 2008 with the agent of first opposite party, named as Perpetual – Harippad, Alappuzha and invest an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- Without complainant’s knowledge they made trading in his account and it become a big loss. The complainant’s client ID is 500123864, DPID – 13041400. When the loss was noticed by the complainant, the office of the perpetual – Harippad was closed. At that time in his account some stocks are available and up to May 2010 the complainant does not trade. The trade was done by the perpetual – Harippad without consent of complainant. Hence the first opposite party is vicariously liable for the loss. After the inquiry the complainant got telephone number of Reliance, Trivandrum office. Later, the 6th opposite party approached on behalf of the first opposite party to the complainant and advised to invest more fund so he can do in trading in the business and solve the above said loss also. The complainant said to 6th opposite party that he do not want much profit, but no more loss. As per the above said promise, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.1,75,220/- in the first opposite party, M/s. Reliance Securities. Thus an amount of Rs.1,75,220/- and stock of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the complainant misappropriated by the opposite parties 2 to 6. Hence the complaint is filed to allow the complainant to recover an amount of Rs.4,25,222/- from the opposite parties and Rs.60,000/- towards gross negligence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable. The agreement entered in between the Stock Broker and Client and the contract notes issued to the Applicant and Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations of the stock exchange clearly provides for reference of all claims and/or dispute to Arbitration and within the jurisdiction of Mumbai. Therefore, the complaint if any has to be referred to the complaint redressal mechanism made available by the Stock Exchanges and the present complaint before this Forum ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. The transaction between the applicants and the opposite parties are commercial transaction and are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act for the reason that the complainant has been carry on a commercial transaction. Further the trading under taken by the applicant is speculative in nature and speculative transactions and services availed and / or for commercial purpose are not covered by the definition of the term Consumer U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The point to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable?
4. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant cannot be termed as a regular trader in purchase and sale of shares. It is well settled principle law that the dispute with respect to the shares does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Reference may be made to the case law cited as III (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments Page 75 (NC), II (1993) Consumer Protection Judgments page 216 (N.C.) and I (1994) Consumer Protection Judgments page 27(N.C.). Investors investing money in share trading with expectancy of earning profit also undertake huge risk of loss for which no one could be held responsible. In the instant case complainant admitted in the complaint that he is working at Sudan in Africa and he opened a Demat Account with the agent of 1st opposite party. So it is clear that the said account was opened with the opposite party with a desire to trade in the shares. He has no case that it was his livelihood. The Hon’ble National Commission in Vijayakumar Vs Indus Ind Bank II 2012 CPJ 181 as held that, “Moreover regular trading in the purchase and sale of share is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit. This activity is purely commercial one and is not covered under the Act.” In the instant case the complainant had been trading in the share business and the same being a commercial activity, the complainant would not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ramesh Mallan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Retail invoice for Rs.9,599.99/-
Ext.A2 - E-mail dated 27.4.2012
Ext.A3 - Warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Josey (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by: - pr/-
Compared by:-
