Investment for profit does not qualify as consumer protection under the Act.

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 463/2014 dated 19.7.2016 whereby the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.

2. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 116 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

3. Case of the Complainant / Petitioner is that he purchased 2,000 equity shares of Aravinda Remedies and 200 equity shares of Reliance Power Ltd. by making payment of Rs. 13,700 and Rs. 49,400 respectively. The Opposite Party delivered 1.000 shares of Aravinda Remedies instead of 2.000 shares amounting to Rs. 6,850 leaving a refundable amount of Rs. 6,850. Further, the Opposite Party delivered 200 shares of Reliance Power Ltd. amounting to Rs. 47,440 leaving a refundable amount of Rs. 1,960. When the Complainant enquired about his Demat Account, he came to know that 200 shares of Reliance Power Ltd. were transferred to the account of Ureka Stock & Share Broking Services without intimation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also did not make payment of Rs. 27,480 being the differential price of the shares which were credited to the Demat account of the Complainant. Aggrieved by non - refunding of the aforesaid amount by the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 72/2011 before the District Forum with the following prayer:
(a) To pay the claim for excess payment of Rs. 6,850, Rs. 1,960 and differential amount of Rs. 27,480 along with interest @ 14% p.a. on profit / gains if invested the aforesaid amounts in the share market to wit till the final payment.
(b) to pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation for unfair trade practice under S.2(1)(c)(i). Deficiency of Service under S.2(1)(c)(ii), read with S.2(1)(g), spurious service under S.2(1)(OO) and Deceptive Service under S.2(1) ® of the C.P. Act, 1986 and ibid, loss of profit / gains if the aforesaid amount invested in the share market for prolonged harassment, irreparable and inexplicable mental agony caused to the petitioner.
(c) To pay cost of litigation.

4. The Opposite Party did not appear before the District Forum and the Complaint was partly allowed ex parte, vide order dated 11.5.2012, with a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 8,810 to the Complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the case till realization.

5. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No. 463/2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 8.2.2013, remanded the matter to the District Forum for deciding the Complaint afresh. In compliance of the order of the State Commission, the District Forum, vide order dated 28.1.2014, dismissed the Complaint as barred by limitation.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No. 463/2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 19.7.2016, dismissed the Appeal as not maintainable since the transactions involved in the case were commercial in nature.

7. The Complainant, thus, filed the instant Revision Petition with the following prayer:
1. Order to the Respondents / OPs to refund Rs. 8,810 (Rs. 6,850 and Rs. 1960), the excess amounts paid by the complainant for purchase of 2,000 shares of Arvind Remidies Ltd. and 200 shares of Reliance Power Ltd. respectively.
2. Order to the Respondents / OPs to refund Rs. 27,480, the difference of market value of 200 equity shares of Reliance Power Ltd. (Cost Rs. 47,440 as per Bill No.