her last trade executed on 28^th day of October 2011 and after settling her account and even after completion of her entire trading with opposite party No.1, had filed the present complaint. It was submitted that Opposite party No.2 is nowhere involved in her transactions and her transactions were executed by the branch office of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 came in picture when the branch office of opposite party No.1 was closed and her account was mapped through opposite party No.2 on 24.6.2011. It was further submitted that opposite parties were bound to send SEM/E-mails to the complainant showing each and every transaction in her account. Opposite parties had provided the complete documents like statement of account, contract notes, e-mail log and SMS etc in physical mode as well as in digital mode on the e-mail ID of the complainant. Even otherwise the complainant had received SMS on her mobile No. 919417252399 of each and every transaction done immediately on the execution of the trades apart from the other relevant documents. The documents are also sent in digital form on her e-mail ID kohligarorutsubg@gmail.com . The above facts and documents in support thereof are substantive proof to negate the averments of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit exbt.C-1 alongwith documents exbt.C-2 to C-5.

4. On the other hand opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Ram Kapoor,authorized representative exbt. RW1/A alongwith documents exbt.R-1 to R-11.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on

-4-

record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant opened D-mat account with opposite party No.1 company having code No. QBN0476 in 2010 and the complainant invested in equities/securities of different companies an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-, the payment of which was made by the complainant through different cheques as detailed in the complaint mentioned above. The complainant alleges that after opening the D-mat account, the complainant was under impression that her equities/securities worth Rs. 2,20,000/- are lying in the D-mate account. On 24.8.2012 the opposite party sent e-mail to the complainant showing the holding of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that when the condition of the market has improved, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and on the insistence of the complainant, the employees of the opposite party No.2 apprised the complainant that only equities of five companies of the value of Rs. 17000/- are lying in the debit account of the complainant. The complainant submitted that when market was down her holding was shown to the value of Rs. 2,20,000/- but now when there is improvement in the market, how her holding has been decreased to Rs. 17000/- only. But the opposite party could not put-forward valid explanation. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that trading in shares is a commercial transaction and as such same does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Resultantly the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. Trading in shares is a speculative transaction and the dispute arising out of the same, is not a consumer dispute and as such the present dispute is beyond the purview of the District Consumer Forum. Opposite parties alleges that the complainant had already executed numerous trades on the exchange platforms through the opposite party since Ist trade on 17.9.2010 and after approximately one year and one month , get her last trade executed on 28.10.2011 and after settling her

-5-

account and even after completion of her entire trading with opposite party No.1, the complainant had filed the present false complaint in 2013 after expiry of about one year of the completion of her trading. Opposite party No.2 is nowhere involved in her transactions and her transactions were executed by the branch office of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 came in picture when the branch office of opposite party No.1 was closed and her account was mapped through opposite party No.2 on 24.6.2011. Opposite parties were bound to send SMS/E-mails to the complainant showing each and every transaction in her account. Opposite parties had provided the complete documents like statement of account, contract notes, e-mail log and SMS etc in physical mode as well as in digital mode on the e-mail ID of the complainant. Even otherwise the complainant had received SMS on her mobile of each and every transaction done immediately on the execution of the trades apart from the other relevant documents. The documents are also sent in digital form on her e-mail ID. So these documents are substantive proof to negate the averments of the complainant. In this regard opposite parties have produced on record the statement of account sent to the complainant exbt.R-5 and other documents exbt.R-6, R-9 i.e. list of documents sent to the complainant, Exbt.R-10 the detailed status of files sent to the complainant which fully prove that the complainant was informed about each and every transaction of her amount in D-mat account. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant opened D-mat account with opposite party No.1 having code No.QBN0476 in the year 2010 and invested her amount in equities/securities of different companies to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The complainant herself admitted that she invested the aforesaid amount in her D-mat account in securities /equities i.e. in the open market in shares i.e. in speculative business to get speculative gain/

-6-

profit . So the transactions made by the complainant are purely of commercial nature which is to earn profit and as such the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant herself has admitted that earlier she filed same complaint before this Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2013. However, when a latest decision of the Hon'ble National Commission cited in 2012(2) CPJ 382 (NC) , the complainant has filed the present complaint. We have gone through the judgement of the Hon'ble National Commission in case IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd & Anr. Vs. Varghese Skaria & Anr. II(2012) CPJ 382 (NC) in which it has been categorically mentioned that where the complainant is a retired employee and he invests his/her amount of retiral benefit for purchasing and trading shares in that case it should not be held that purpose of investing money in shares is for commercial gain but to earn livelihood after their retirement. The complainant could not produce any evidence that she is a retired employee or that the amount invested by her in shares/trading business was her retiral benefits nor the complainant could produce any certificate from any employer to prove that she was employee of any firm, department,organisation etc. Even she did not allege in her complaint that she is a retired employee. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Shri Chandra Shekhar Mishra Vs.Indiabulls Securities Ltd Revision Petition No. 2821 of 2012 deided on 10.4.2013 that the complainant a share holder cannot be the consumer qua the opposite party within the meaning of consumer as enshirned in Consumer Protection Act. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Vijay Kumar Vs. Indusind Bank 2012(II) CPJ 181 (NC) that since the petitioner has been trading regularly in the shares which is a commercial transaction , as such he would not be a consumer as per section 2(I)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, the regular trading in the purchase and sale of the shares is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit.

-7-

Thus, this activity is purely commercial one and is not covered under the Act. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in case M/s Steel City Securities Ltd. Vs. Sh. G.P. Ramesh in Revision Petition 3060 of 2011 decided on 3.2.2014.

9. So in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, as the complainant has been trading regularly in the shares which is a commercial transaction and the only motive of the complainant is to earn profit, as such this activity is purely commercial one.

10. Consequently we hold that complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party as per definition of consumer in the Consumer Protection Act.

11. Apart from this the record produced by the complainant herself i.e. statement of account exbt.C-2 as well as the record produced by the opposite party, statement of account exbt.R-5 the documents sent by the opposite party to the complainant of each and ever transaction exbt.R-6, list of messages sent to the complainant about every transaction of the complainant regarding investment of her amount in the shares exbt.R-9, detailed status of information sent to the parties i.e. complainant exbt.R-10 fully proves that complainant has been duly informed about every transaction of investment of her amount in the share market. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

12. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy

-8-

pendency of the cases in this Forum.

30.1.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

Member