NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Ratna Bose —Petitioner
versus
India Infoline Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2836 of 2018
Decided on 25.2.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Priya Sankar Bose, AR (Husband of the Petitioner)
For the Respondent:Ms. Rajashree Bhowmick, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Revision – National Stock Exchange – Trading account and DMAT account have been opened by the Petitioner – Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited – Petitioner had been indulging in trading of the shares – Dispute between the parties relating to commercial purposes are excluded under the Act – Petitioner is not a Consumer – Held that, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. [Paras 7,9,11 and 14]
Result: Revision dismissed
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.08.2018 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1187/2017.
2. The Petitioner/Complainant is an account holder of the Respondent/Opposite Party, trading with their Gariahat Branch, Kolkata. Petitioner’s case is that her account was transferred to IIFL Mumbai allegedly without her consent. She took up the matter with the Respondent-company and National Stock Exchange, but in vain. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed arbitration case seeking refund of STD charges and compensation. The claim of the Petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking following reliefs: -
“i. To kindly pass an order for refund of STD charges due to transfer of account by the IIFL without written consent.
ii. To pass a kind order for damaging my business by various restrictive practice and unfair trade practice Rs.50,000/-.
iii. To pass a kind order for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and turpitude by Company’s malafide activities.”
3. The Opposite Party contested the Complaint and denied all the allegations made. It stated that the Petitioner is a trading and clearing member of the NSE and also registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Trading account and Dmat account have been opened by the Petitioner with the Respondent for trading in the capital market and the Petitioner buys and sells shares on a regular basis. On account of restructuring of the Respondent company, the Petitioner was provided facility of trading through centralized dedicated dealing desk and she was duly informed. She had been trading regularly for last two years without any complaint. An arbitration case was also filed by the Petitioner which was dismissed.
4. The District Forum, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, rejected the contention of the Complainant on the ground that she being a shareholder cannot seek relief in a Consumer Court, particularly when the sole Arbitrator appointed by the National Stock Exchange rejected the arbitration case.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing both the parties and perusing the record, concurred with the views of the District Forum and came to the conclusion that the case was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. The State Commission ordered as follows: -
“The appeal stands dismissed against the Respondent on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent within 40 days from today. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.”
6. Heard the Authorized Representative of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent and also carefully perused the record. It is admitted that Petitioner opened a “trading account” with the Respondent/Opposite Party at their Gariahat Branch, Kolkata. Her account was transferred to IIFL Mumbai. Then she filed an arbitration case and the Arbitrator dismissed the case. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum and Appeal before the State Commission. Both the Fora below have come to a concurrent finding that she being a share-trader, cannot seek relief in a Consumer Court.
7. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (