The investment in portfolio management is a commercial activity, disqualifying the complainant from consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act.

….… Opposite Party Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.Taleba Nazneen Counsel for the Opposite Party : Admission stage QUORUM:

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

Order : (Per Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Hon’ble Member-Judicial)

ADMISSION STAGE

1. This complaint is filed under Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,29,33,473/- to the Complainant along with an interest @ 18% from the date of filing this complaint till date of realization of the amount; to pay appropriate punitive/exemplary damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and trauma undergone by the Complainants and also taking up into consideration the severity of the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties; to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay the legal expenses of the Complainant amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and pass such other order or orders as this Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

2. Heard the Complainant counsel at the admission stage. Perused the record. The objections of the Registry relates to the following aspects viz., (i) The amount of consideration that was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii) The commercial nature of the transactions to know whether the Complainant can be considered as a Consumer?

(iii) The aspect of limitation to entertain the complaint.

3. Point (i):- The counsel for the Complainant relied upon the Bank statement given by Kotak Mahindra Bank which shows that the Complainant gave Rs.2 Crores to the Opposite Party under five transactions for the period from 16.06.2016 to 19.04.2020. It is averred in the complaint that due to the mismanagement of the Opposite Party, the Complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,29,33,473/-. At this stage, the said document can be considered to decide jurisdiction and we are of the view that this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. Point (ii):- Admittedly, as per the complaint, the amount was given to the Opposite Party for portfolio management. Here it is to be observed that the portfolio management involves investments in securities which includes - shares, scrips, debentures, stocks, bonds, mutual funds and warrants etc., to generate capital profit or capital appreciation. Added to the same, there is no guarantee for returns or of there being no capital loss. The entire basis of this transaction/agreement reveals the speculative nature of investments with the primary object of earning profits. The Complainant counsel relied upon the citations reported in –

(i) [(1991) 1 CPJ 499 (NC)] between “Synco Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Greaves Cotton and Company Limited”.

(ii) [(2024) 1 SCC 8] between “ Rohit Chaudhary Vs. Vipul Ltd. ” (iii) 2020 (2) SCC 265 between “ Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. M/s.Unique Shanti Developers ”.

5. The Complainant counsel placed specific emphasis on third citation as given above. In paragraph No.7 (IV) of the judgment (iii) cited above, it is observed that “if it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of „generating livelihood by means of self-employment‟ need not be looked into.”

6. We are of the emphatic view that investing money in the portfolio management amounts to commercial activity. So the Complainant do