Case No. 664/10

          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 bearing No. 10218688 with OP No.2/IDBI. It is stated that the complainant purchased 2000 shares of the OP No.1; that OP No.1 had paid only Rs.3,750/- as dividend on 1000 shares while the complainant had 2000 shares and was further entitled to receive dividend on total 2000 shares and not on 1000 shares and as the OP No.1 had not paid Rs.3750/- to the complainant on his another 1000 shares. 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) and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present dispute. The dispute pertains to non credit of appropriate shares pursuant to its corporate actions etc. and is within the realm of the Companies Act, 1956.

          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:

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 Sanjay Chandra Agarwal vs. India Bulls Securities Ltd., I (2015) CPJ 450 (NC), National Commission held that share transactions are not carried out by way of self-employment for earning livelihood and therefore the complainant is not a consumer.

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 Anit Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., I (2014) CPJ 168(NC), National Commission held that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to decide case of shares.

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.

It is not disputed in the facts of the case that complainant had opened a De-mat account for trading in shares. 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 which does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is therefore dismissed being non-maintainable.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required.  File be consigned to record room.

Annou nced on 19.11.19.