IMPORTANT POINT
Share trading by complainant cannot be treated as to earn livelihood at age of 62 or 63 years.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 1530 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 19.05.2015 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. FA no. 927 of 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in share trading through the respondent. The respondent arranged for his trading for an interim period through trade line (022-39440000) Bombay after trading was closed by the Garia branch illegally. Since then the petitioner has been trading at Trade-line Bombay at the intervention of Territory Manager/AVP of the respondent. However, because of several types of restrictive practices at the said Trade-line, of which neither the petitioner had any prior information nor the respondent apprised the petitioner about the same beforehand, the petitioner suffered huge loss. Repeated representations to the respondent, did not yield any positive result hence, the petitioner moved the instant case before the District Forum seeking appropriate relief. The petitioner has therefore prayed that :

i. To pass a kind order for refund of STD charges for doing trading at Bombay due to deficiency and restrictive practice;

ii. Pass a kind order for Rs.50,000/- for damaging business by not allowing adequate exposure limit for the intra-day trading; and

iii. To pass an exemplary damage/ compensation of Rs.50,000/- for continuous suffering and mental agony created by IIFL and making several breach of contracts.

3. The respondent/ opposite party in their reply before the District Forum while denying all the allegation states that the petitioner had shown his interest in trading and opening demat account with the respondent. The petitioner hails from banking background and was quite aware of the capital market.

4. That the petitioner was an intra-day trader, who traded, bought and sold daily in the stock market on regular basis. He was listed as a trader in stock exchange. Share market is based on speculative trade and contingency, having no guarantee of profit and loss. The Consumer Protection Act was not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses. The petitioner was not a consumer as per the definition of CPA 1986.

5. That the Consumer Forum set under the CPA 1986 was not the proper forum to adjudicate over share trading disputes. Share trade was guided by the technical and legal guidance of SEBI, RBI and Stock Exchange (National Stock Exchange to be specific in this instant case) and abided by their laws, bylaws, rules and guidelines. NSE has its arbitral tribunal, and arbitral appellate tribunal set as per law, to settle such disputes. The award of such tribunal was mandatory over the broker as NSE liquidate the award from the deposit of the broker. Instead the petitioner steered away from the agreement and moved before this Forum to misguide and take short-cut path to hide out technical latches on his behalf.

6. The consumer had raised complaint against dedicated Trade Line Department in Mumbai having no. 022-39449999 which does not fall under the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

7. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 31st July 2014 while dismissing the complaint observed that:

“But as because he has filed this case and he shall have to get relief that is not the principle of law and in the present case what we have gathered complainant is trying to get relief but truth is that he has a share trading business who is not a consumer in the eye of law and no doubt complainant is well aware of the capital market share etc having his past experience. Now with such experience and knowledge and with other document he has filed cases after cases and for getting relief. But anyhow in the present case it is clear that there is no law to declare him as a consumer in the op under the present case. Any