S. Coari, Member—The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No.Unit-II/340/04 wherein the learned Forum below dismissed the complaint on contest without any order as to cost.

2. The case of the Appellant/Complainant before the learned Forum below, in brief was that the Respondent/OP allured the complainant in share trading with the assurance of fixed return of share trading profit. Accordingly, the complainant invested money in share trading. But the OP-Respondent did not pay back the complainant any amount as agreed between the parties and hence, the complaint.

3. The OP-Respondent contested the case before the Forum below with the defence that the Complainant-Appellant was never a Consumer in its true sense. The Consumer Protection Act is not the appropriate Forum for seeking relief in respect of the transaction entered into between the parties. There is no allegation of negligence or deficiency in service at the instance of the OP and as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Forum below after considering the respective parties’ case has observed that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent-OP in respect of the transaction entered into between the parties. The complainant having failed to make out a positive case in terms of the complaint and as the transaction between the parties does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant was not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

5. The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the learned Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint in the manner as discussed above.

Decision with Reasons

6. At the time of hearing of the Appeal the Appellant in person has submitted before us that he is a bona fide citizen of this country and he having invested his good money with the Respondent Company in share trading and having been deprived of his legitimate returns agreed by the Respondent has suffered materially and to the detriment of his interest. The Appellant has tried his level best to impress upon us that the transaction in question is entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the observation made by the learned Forum below to the contrary is not at all acceptable under the law and he has simply sought for protection from this Commission of his valuable security in the form of money invested with the Respondent Company in the form of share trading.

7. The Respondent has not entered its appearance and contested the case before this Commission though it received the notice.

8. We have duly considered the submissions put forward by the Appellant in person and has gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that there is no dispute in the factual position to the effect that the Appellant entered into a contract with the Respondent Company in the matter of share trading. In fact, we do not find any allegation of negligence put forward by the Appellant before the Forum below. However, we have also considered this aspect of the case, but is unable to accept the proposition put forward by the appellant in this regard. In our opinion the transactions, which took place between the parties, can never be attributed to be a transaction which comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As we all know that investors who do invest their good money in share trading with the expectancy of earning some favourable profits, at the same time undertake a huge risk of loss for which no one could be held responsible. Having considered the present matter in the light of above observation we do not find any merit in the present Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.

9. Hence, ordered that the Appeal be dismissed ex parte without cost. The impugned judgment of t