Back
2014 Supreme(UK) 315
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, Hon’ble Member Mr. D.K. Tyagi
and Hon’ble Member Mrs. Veena Sharma
Consumer Complaint No. 15/2013
SH. RAKESH CHANDRA KAUSHIK – Complainant
Versus
SH. SUKESH JAIN & ORS. – Opposite Parties
Decided on : 09.10.2014
For the Complainant : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. C.S. Verma, Learned Counsel
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 2(1)(d) — Definition of “Consumer” under — Clear that the person who avails the services for any commercial purpose or the person who is engaged in any commercial activity, does not fall under the definition of “consumer” and can not be said to be consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 12 r/w Sec. 18 — Consumer complaint under — Alleging unfair trade practice — Definition of consumer — It is a settled law that the transactions regarding sale and purchase of shares are commercial transactions and the person engaged in the said transactions can not be termed as “Consumer” u/s 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Held that the as the complainant had invested money in shares for earning profit, i.e., for commercial purpose — Hence the consumer complaint filed by him is not maintainable. (Paras 16, 22)
¼v½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 2(1)(d) & ßmiHkksDrkÞ dh ifjHkk”kk & Li”V gS fd tks O;fDr okf.kfT;d mn~ns’; ls lsok izkIr djrk gS ;k og O;fDr tks okf.kfT;d ÑR; esa izo`Ùk gS og ßmiHkksDrkÞ dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugha vkrk u gh og miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj miHkksDrk ekU; gSA ¼izLrj 12] 13½
¼c½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 12 lifBr /kkjk 18 & miHkksDrk f’kdk;r & vuqfpr O;kikj izFkk ds fo#) & ;g LFkkfir fof/k gS fd ‘ks;j dh [kjhn&csp ds lacaèk esa fd;k x;k ysu nsu ,d okf.kfT;d ysu nsu gS vkSj tks O;fDr dfFkr ysu nsu esa O;Lr gS mls U/s 2(1)(d), miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 miHkksDrk ugha LohÑr fd;k tk ldrk & /kkfjr & pw¡fd f’kdk;rdÙkkZ us ykHk vtZu ds fy, i.e. okf.kfT;d mn~ns’; ls jkf’k ‘ks;j esa fuos’k djh Fkh & blfy, miHkksDrk f’kdk;r iks”k.kh; ughaA ¼izLrj 16] 22½
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh. Rakesh Chandra Kaushik (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) against the opposite parties, alleging unfair trade practice on their part.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are the complainant is a retailer of computer parts and is running the business under the name and style of M/s Hindustan Computers and Peripherals. For the past few years, the complainant was investing a part of his earnings in shares. On 06.07.2010 at about 2:00 p.m., one person with the name of Sh. Arun came in the office of the complainant and asked the complainant that he can earn good profit by making investment in shares. The said person Sh. Arun told the complainant that his employer – opposite parties know every person of the State of Uttarakhand who makes investment in shares. The complainant found the version of Sh. Arun very strange and asked him that he does not want to invest in shares and asked him to leave. In the meantime, Sh. Arun asked the complainant to talk with his employers on telephone, to which the complainant refused. On 26.07.2010, Sh. Arun again came in the office of the complainant and gave different sorts of proposals to the complainant and said that Sh. Sukesh Jain – opposite party No. 1 and both his sons, namely, Sh. Siddharth Jain and Sh. Chirag Jain – opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have good knowledge of share market. On repeated requests of Sh. Arun, the complainant visited the office of Sukesh Jain Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., Jai Plaza, 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun in the last week of July, 2010. When the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, Sh. Arun was not present there and on inquiry, the opposite party No. 2 told that Sh. Arun has been transferred to Main Branch of the company at Noida. Thereafter, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 gave information to the complainant about the share business and told that they have their men in every company, who give them certain information and they have knowledge of hike and fall in the price of shares of different companies. The complainant told them that he is a small businessman and wants to invest his earning in shares and asked the opposite parties to invest his amount in shares of good companies. The complainant also directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 not to invest his amount in shares without his consent and to give periodic information regarding his share account, to which the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 agreed. Upon the assurance given by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant agreed for opening of DMAT Account. The complainant was told that without the trading account, the shares can not be purchased, on which the complainant also asked for opening the trading account. The signatures of the complainants were obtained on certain blank forms.
3. The opposite parties opened the DMAT Account and Trading Account of the complainant with them bearing DMAT Account No. 1202060200025032 and Trading Account No. 6918 respectively. On 31.07.2010, the opposite party No. 2 took a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant in the name of United Share Brokers Limited. Thereafter, the opposite parties took 33 cheques from the complainant for the period from 31.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 for total sum of Rs. 17,76,079.40/-. All the cheques were taken in the name of United Share Brokers Limited and the proceeds of the cheques was transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of United Share Brokers Limited. The complainant had also personally purchased shares to the tune of Rs. 1,57,449/-, with which the opposite parties had no concern whatsoever and the said shares were also transferred in the DMAT Account of the complainant with the opposite parties. This way, the opposite parties had sum of Rs. 19,33,528.40/- of the complainant with them. The complainant several
