The central legal point established in the judgment is that a prospective investor is not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to decide cases related to non-allotment of shares by a company.

As per Hon'ble Shri V.K. AgarWal, President :-

1. This appeal has been preferred under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 21.7.2005, passed in complaint No,54/05 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum" for short) dismissing the complaint.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had applied to OP No.3 for allotment of 730 shares in his name and had sent a sum of Rs, 13,870/- vide draft No. 858205 of the SBI dated 8,9.2004, It was alleged in the complaint that the bid application, together with the draft was submitted with the OP No,2 but due to negligence of the said OP neither shares were allotted in the name of the complainant not the money was returned, It was further alleged that even despite enquiry from the OP No, 1 and 2 complainant could not get proper reply hence he wrote a letter to the OP No.3 and 4 on 30.10.2004 but did not receive satisfactory compliance till 15.12.2004. Consequently the complainant got legal notice dated 15.12.2004 served through his counsel Ku. M.V. Deshpandey but as nothing concrete was done the complainant was constrained to file complaint before the District Forum for claiming relief as detailed in the complaint:

3. The opposite party/respondent NO.1 resisted the complaint and denied the allegations of deficiency in service and averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the present complainant had applied for shares for business! commercial purpose and as such does not come within the definition of 'Consumer' under S,2(1)( d) of the Consumer Protection Act; 1986. The OP had also challenged territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The OP also raised the plea of non-joinder of proper parties as the complainant had failed to implead the Bank as a party. It was admitted in the written version that the complainant had applied for allotment of 730 shares of Book Building Issue of India Bulls Financial Services Limited and the OP had forwarded the draft of the complainant along with the application for allotment of shares but on presentation of the Demand Draft the same was returned by the Bankers of the complainant and after receipt of the said draft the OP had without any delay, forwarded the same to the complainant for cancellation of the same. It was further averred that the OP did not consider the application for allotment of shares because the draft was returned by the Bank but they had forwarded the draft returned by the Bank to the complainant. It was further averred that the complaint is liable to be the dismissed subject to costs.

4. The learned District Forum held that the deficiency if any was on part of the Bank and as the Bank was not a party to the proceedings the complaint cannot be allowed. The learned Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Final arguments heard and record perused.

6. During the course of final arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order and submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without proper perusal of pleadings, complainant's affidavit as well as the documents. He further submitted that the learned District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Bank has not been made a party. He reiterated that bank is not a necessary party in the matter. He further submitted that it is worth being noticed that the draft was returned to the complainant during pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum and just a few days before the date of order. This fact itself is sufficient to demonstrate that there was collusion between the opposite parties and the Bank. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in their written version the opposite party No. 1 had averred that on receipt of the draft from the Bank, they had immediately forwarded the same