SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(UK) 203

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, Hon’ble H.J.S. Member Mr. D.K. Tyagi
and Hon’ble Member Mrs. Veena Sharma
Complaint Case No. CC/09/2
DR. RAJ KUMAR GAURAV – Complainant(s)
Versus
INDIA INFOLINE SECURITIES P. LTD. – Opp. Party(s)
Decided on : 15.04.2015

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 12 r/w Sec. 18 — Consumer complaint under — For compensation of Rs. 25,45,000/- towards financial loss and other expenses — Maintainability of — Held that the complainant in the present case does not fall under the definition of “consumer” as provided u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — As he had invested money in shares for earning profit, i.e., for commercial purpose — Hence the consumer complaint filed by him, not maintainable before the Consumer Fora liable to be dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 14 to 20)

        miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 12 lifBr /kkjk 18 & #ñ 25]45]000@& dk izfrdj o vU; [kpks± ds fy, miHkksDrk f’kdk;r dh iks”k.kh;rk & /kkfjr fd izLrqr okn esa f’kdk;rdÙkkZ /kkjk 2¼1½¼M+h½- miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 esa iznku dh x;h miHkksDrk dh ifjHkk”kk ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk & D;ksafd mlds }kjk O;kolkf;d mn~ns’; ls ‘ks;j esa iSlk equkQk vftZr djus ds fy, fuos’k fd;k x;k Fkk & bl izdkj mlds }kjk ntZ miHkksDrk f’kdk;r miHkksDrk Qksje esa iks”k.kh; ugha o [kkfjt gksus ;ksX;A

        ¼izLrj 10] 11] 14 ls 20½

ORDER :

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

The complainant has filed this consumer complaint before this Commission under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties for compensation of Rs. 25,45,000/- towards financial loss, Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 15.00 lacs towards mental pain and agony.

2. The complainant has stated in the consumer complaint that he had a DMat account having client ID No. 10611068 with Alankit Assignment Ltd., New Delhi. In the month of February, 2006, the complainant on the representation of the opposite party No. 2 had opened his DMAT account with the opposite parties and was allotted account Login ID-RAJRAV-67 and clinet ID 10683809. The complainant was made to sign a form and the opposite parties had obtained about 40 signatures on the said form but at that time neither the said form was filled up nor any copy of the said form was provided to the complainant despite his request. That as agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties were supposed to provide statement of account to the complainant every month besides doing transaction in the said account on duly issued instructions of the complainant. The complainant was also handed over certain papers after opening of account which contained his confidential password and also 10 delivery instruction slips accompanied by a client master list approved by NSDL. The complainant has till date not scratched the said password and the said paper is intact with the complainant. In absence of the said password no transaction could have been carried out from the said account of the complainant. In the said account the complainant got transferred his shares of 20 companies from his previous account at Alankit Assignment Ltd. to the said account and also got transferred shares of two companies from his father’s account No. 10632052, which was also maintained by Alankit Assignments Ltd. to his said account. After opening the said account with the opposite parties the complainant asked for the statement of account to ascertain that his shares from his previous account maintained by Alankit Assignment Ltd. have been duly transferred, but it was not provided. Non- providing of the statement of account to the complainant is deficiency in service provided to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 had made the complainant understand that unlike other similar companies the opposite parties’ brokerage fees is only 0.35% per transaction carried out by them on instruction of the complainant and not 1.5%. The complainant was also made to understand that no charges as the opening of account will be charged from the complainant, but the opposite party will charge the complainant by receiving commission of 0.35% per share transaction. That the complainant had been repeatedly requesting for providing him statement of account since in absence of the same the complainant was unable to issue instruction for any transaction. The complainant from the very beginning of his account with the opposite parties has not carried out any transaction in his shares nor has till date given any instruction to do so. Sometime in May, 2006, through newspaper and T.V. programme “Peharedaar”, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties are into business of befooling others for their personal gains and, hence, checked up with the dividends received from various companies whose shares, the complainant had got transferred from Alankit Assignment Ltd. to the said account of the complainant maintained by the oppsotie parties and found out that his account holding after being transferred to the said account maintained by the opposite parties has been drastically reduced and various transactions have been carried out from his said account, whereas he neither issued any instruction to do so nor has carried out any transaction himself. The complainant lodged complaint with the Branch Incharge of opposite parties at th






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top