A service relationship for investment management does not classify as consumer service under consumer protection laws when transactions are commercial in nature.

JUDGMENT

AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER

1. These two Appeals Nos. FA/1089/2014 and FA/1090/2014 have been filed by Tajinder Kumar Taneja (“Appellant”/ “Complainant”) against M/s. Unique Investments & Ors. (“Respondents”/“Opposite Parties - OPs”) challenging the Orders dated 01.11.2013 in CC/73/2009 and CC/74/2009 respectively wherein the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (“State Commission”) dismissed both the Complaints.

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in both Appeals are substantially similar, except for minor variations in the dates, events and cheque numbers, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. Nevertheless, for ease of reference, First Appeal No. 1089 of 2014 is being considered as the lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from Consumer Complaint No. 73/2009.

3. As per the Registry report, there is 209 days delay in filing both the Appeals. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. For convenience, the parties in the case are being referred to as stated in the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that Opposite Party (OP)-1 is a partnership firm with OP-2 and 3 as partners. The said partnership firm holds a valid share broking license and operates as a sub-broker of M/s Integrated Market Securities Ltd., a partnership firm was actively managed and operated by OP-2 and 3, along with their respective husbands, Mr. Ashwani Randhev and Mr. Sandeep Dhawan, who are qualified Chartered Accountants and played instrumental roles in the day-to-day operations of the firm. The OPs and their aforementioned husbands were personally known to the Complainant and approached him with an investment proposition, inducing him to invest substantial sums with assured returns and profits. The OPs specifically assured him that they would provide comprehensive Portfolio Management Services (PMS) for purchase and trading of shares based on their professional advice and expertise. The terms offered included an assured return of 1% per month, along with ninety percent of the profits generated after taxes, while OPs would retain brokerage charges and 10% of the profits as their compensation. Based on these assurances and professional relationship established, the Complainant executed various forms and provided necessary documentation to open a trading account with the OPs for the purpose of building and managing his investment portfolio. The Complainant complied with all requirements and made initial investments as advised and required by the OPs. Subsequently, between 08.01.2005, and 30.04.2007, he transferred Rs.26,50,000 to the OPs through multiple cheque payments. This included Rs.1,50,000 contributed by Late Smt. Nita Arora, his spouse. All payments made to OPs were exclusively through cheques, and the Complainant possesses corresponding bank letters confirming their encashment by OP-1. Throughout the investment period, the Complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to provide his Account No. and Demat Account details for verification and monitoring. However, the OPs consistently avoided providing this information and instead assured the Complainant of excellent growth prospects and good returns on his investment. While some nominal amounts were returned to him during this period, the net outstanding balance remained Rs.26,50,000, along with accrued interest and projected profits. On several occasions, the Complainant expressed his need to withdraw his invested funds for business purposes and requested