West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/12/230

Smt. Champa Haldar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumit Grhia, Manager, Sales, M/s. India Infoline Limited and another - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2014

ORDER

 

1. Smt. Champa Haldar,

            B/1, Mala Apartment,

            54, Jadu Nath Ukil Road,

            P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata-41.                                               _________ Complainant

               

____Versus____

 

1. Sri Sumit Grhia,  Manager-Sales,

            M/s India Infoline Ltd.,

            9, Elgin Road, 3^rd Floor,

            P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-20.

 

1. M/s India Infoline Ltd.,

9, Elgin Road, 3^rd Floor,

            P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-20.                                                                 ________ Opposite Parties

 

Present :         Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                      Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

                                        

Order No.   17    Dated   29-05-2014.

 

          The case of the complainant in short is that the husband of complainant has taken VRS due to fully medically incapacity and being convinced by the narration of o.p. no.1, complainant opened a Trading and Dmat Account as first holder and her husband as second holder with M/s India Infoline Ltd. i.e. o.p. no.2. As committed by o.p. no.1 initially the brokerages were charged @ 0.10% for delivery, 0.01% for intraday. Suddenly the same were raised to 0.5% and 0.05%. On repeated mailing to o.p. no.1, complainant sought for rectification. Complainant also complained to o.p. no.2 and after a long time o.p. no.2 accepted their fault and implemented their brokerage rate and subsequently complainant succeeded to increase her trade volume. But o.ps. did not rectify the intraday nor reverse the excess brokerage and ST deduction. As committed by o.p. no.1 ODIN type software had not been installed. The matters were informed to o.ps. in time, but they did not solve the problem. Incidentally as per advice of Mr. Goutam, System Manager of o.p., complainant had to format her PC spending Rs.450/- and again he has taken Rs.300/- through his representative. Still then system error continued. Then Mr. Goutam blamed for internet connection. But BSNL representative checked the internet connection and certified as ‘OK’. Again Mr. Goutam sent his representative who damaged the system of the internet connection and for this reason complainant faced huge loss to the tune of Rs.1,88,734.02 for the period from 1.4.10 to 18.5.12. Therefore, complainant filed the instant case with prayer for her loss along with interest, unrealized loss, incidental charges along with compensation and cost.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that it is very common fact that instruments, software, hardware may face technical problems which is purely incidental. However, the trading number has never been avoided the complainant. No way it can be stated that problems created by the trading member. Moreover, complainant’s allegation for her loss due to non installation is wrong and baseless. Therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The moot question for consideration is whether the complaint petition is maintainable or not before this Forum. Firstly, the there are two share holders one the complainant and another is her husband. The trading business was allotted in favour of both of them, but the instant petition was filed by only first holder. Moreover, this is purely a commercial transaction. The complainant is running her business of share trading for commercial purpose. in this connection we have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in Vijay Kumar  vs. Indusind
Bank II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC). The Hon’ble Commission has been observed that “Since, petitioner has been trading regularly in the shares which is a commercial transaction and, as such he would not be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, regular trading in the purchase and sale of the shares is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit. Thus, this activity is purely commercial one and is not covered under the Act’.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.