CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/22/2019
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Ram Babu Piple
S/o Lt. Sh. CharanjiLal
R/o B-3/28, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Mr. Surender Kumar Aggarwal
R/o 8/6416, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint was filed by Sh. Ram Babu Piple (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date pleading therein that OP is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and purchasing of jewellery and during the course of dealings with OP, he allured the complainant to invest his money in purchasing shares. At the end of the year 1977, complainant sent 500 shares for transfer but the same were returned with the reason that the signatures did not match. Complainant visited the office of OP and OP assured him that all the shares are of his family members and they would give fresh transfer deed whenever the complainant would be interested in selling the said shares. Complainant was waiting for the right time for selling the shares and as per assurance of OP he did not insist for issuance of the fresh transfer deed. Complainant sent letter dated 16.09.2018 to OP to issue fresh transfer form duly verified by them and also requested to transfer shares in D-MAT forum by 30.09.2018. OP did not do the needful. Complainant sent a legal notice to OP dated 05.10.2018. Complainant is having a D-MAT account. The current sale value of shares complainant has is Rs. 3,15,882/-. OP is bound to issue a fresh transfer deed duly signed by the said vendors/shareholders but OP in collusion with his own family members/shareholders had forged signatures on the transfer deed and therefore the shares could not be transferred in the name of the complainant, in the record of the company. Complainant has prayed for direction to OP to transfer the said shares in his D-MAT account or in the alternate pay a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- towards price of shares and mental agony, to pay pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Here it is relevant to note that National Commission in Vijay Kumar vs. Indusind Bank Revision Petition No. 3986 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 556 of 2010 observed:
“regular trading in the purchase and sale of the shares is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit.
3. In A. Asaithambi vs. M/S Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Ors. Revision Petition No. 1179 of 2012, National Commission vide its order dated 01.08.0212 observed:
“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).
10. Again, such like question arose for consideration before National Commission in case of Som Nath Jain Vs. R.C. Goenka & Anr, reported in 1 (1994) CPJ 27 (NC). In that case, dealing with sale purchase of shares, National Commission expressed serious doubt whether the complaint qua it would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Because, qua such transactions, elaborate evidence need to be taken regarding purchase and sale of shares, their prevalent price in the market and evidence regarding passing of instructions by client to the broker. Resultantly, the complainants were relegated to get the dispute decided through civil court.
11. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, in case Ramendra Nath Basu Vs. Sanjeev Kapoor & Anr., reported in 1 (2009) CPJ 316 qua share trading has held that transactions between parties do not come under purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Similar view was taken by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Anand Prakash Vs. A.M. Johri & Ors., reported in III (2000) CPJ 291, by holding that sale purchase of shares are commercial transactions, so, complainant is not a consumer in such cases.”
National Commission referred to judgment of Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 wherein it was observed that a prospective investor is not a consumer under the Act.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In Gautam Das (Dr.) vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 276 (NC), Equity shares were allotted. Duplicate shares were transferred to third person. Shares were subsequently dematerialized. Shares were never sold by share holder. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed. National Commission observed that shareholders are not consumers under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. and thus complaint is not legally maintainable.
7. In Ashok Dogra vs. India Bulls Securities Limited, II (2010) CPJ 61 (Chd.) Complainant alleged that shares were traded by OP officials without authority. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complaint was dismissed holding dispute did not fall under Consumer Protection Act. Contention of the complainant that he invested in shares for earning livelihood was rejected. It was held that purchase of shares is done for earning huge profits which is commercial in nature and therefore complainant was not a consumer. It was also held that allegations of fraud cannot be gone into by the Consumer Fora.
8. 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.
9. 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), Krishan Lal Lalra vs. Religare Securities Ltd., II (2015) CPJ 338 (NC) and V.K. Agarwal (Dr.) vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. & Ors., I (2013) CPJ 373 (NC), National Commission held that regular trading in sale and purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits.
10. In view of the aforesaid judgments the transaction carried on by the complainant is purely commercial and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The complaint is therefore dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on ____ Day of ____________ 2019.
