‘Investor trading in shares can’t be treated as a consumer’
BY PTI12 Jan 2013 1:34 AM GMT
PTI12 Jan 2013 1:34 AM GMT
Dismissing a complaint by an investor using the services of a share broking company, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has held that an investor cannot be treated as a consumer as he is indulging in trading for commercial purposes.
Thane Consumer Forum president Jyoti A Mandhle and member Smita L Desai passed the order on 9 January on a complaint by Hayya V Madane against India Infoline.
Madane from New Panvel had enrolled herself with the India Infoline Ltd, for availing their services in trading in shares. Accordingly, she had opened a demat account and was using the services of the firm for trading. In her complaint, Madane said that in March 2008, she had opened a demat account with IndiaInfoline for selling and purchase of shares. She deposited Rs 60,555 with the company and Rs 0.05 paise was to be taken as brokerage for trading. It was noticed by the complainant that instead of charging Rs 0.05 paise, they charged Rs 0.10 paise as brokerage.
On 6 June 2008, an email was sent by the complainant to the company to stop the transaction going into the account but despite that, the latter continued the trading transaction and disposed amount from her account. On 2 August 2008, she sent a letter to the company saying that the amount Rs 60,000 should be reversed back into her account with interest or else she will take legal action against them.
She submitted that as no response was given by the company, she sent a notice on 20 September 2008, to the manager of the company saying that the deposited amount in her account should be reversed into her account with interest. The complainant informed the forum that she suffered immense mental stress and agony due to the conduct of the company. However, the trading company contested the complaint and told the forum that 'as the complainant is taking services from us for commercial purposes for making profit by trading in stock market, so she is not a consumer and as the complainant is not a consumer, this complaint should be dismissed with heavy cost.' The respondent also stated that any disputes arising between the parties in respect of this agreement of any contract dealings or transactions or interpretation or construction of the agreement are subject to the arbitration procedure, as prescribed by the Exchange provisions, so the complainant has no right to seek any relief for want of jurisdictions.
They also said that the objective behind opening the account was commercial and in view of the terms 2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, parties who avail services are excluded from the definition of the consumer and therefore the complainant is not a consumer and thus her complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. In their order, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that, 'The complainant has not made out any case under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to the effect that such trading is for her own employment and earning her livelihood, therefore she being not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, the dispute is not a consumer dispute.'
'From the facts of the present case and the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complainant has availed services for commercial purposes and therefore the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act,' the forum added.
Thane Consumer Forum president Jyoti A Mandhle and member Smita L Desai passed the order on 9 January on a complaint by Hayya V Madane against India Infoline.
Madane from New Panvel had enrolled herself with the India Infoline Ltd, for availing their services in trading in shares. Accordingly, she had opened a demat account and was using the services of the firm for trading. In her complaint, Madane said that in March 2008, she had opened a demat account with IndiaInfoline for selling and purchase of shares. She deposited Rs 60,555 with the company and Rs 0.05 paise was to be taken as brokerage for trading. It was noticed by the complainant that instead of charging Rs 0.05 paise, they charged Rs 0.10 paise as brokerage.
On 6 June 2008, an email was sent by the complainant to the company to stop the transaction going into the account but despite that, the latter continued the trading transaction and disposed amount from her account. On 2 August 2008, she sent a letter to the company saying that the amount Rs 60,000 should be reversed back into her account with interest or else she will take legal action against them.
She submitted that as no response was given by the company, she sent a notice on 20 September 2008, to the manager of the company saying that the deposited amount in her account should be reversed into her account with interest. The complainant informed the forum that she suffered immense mental stress and agony due to the conduct of the company. However, the trading company contested the complaint and told the forum that 'as the complainant is taking services from us for commercial purposes for making profit by trading in stock market, so she is not a consumer and as the complainant is not a consumer, this complaint should be dismissed with heavy cost.' The respondent also stated that any disputes arising between the parties in respect of this agreement of any contract dealings or transactions or interpretation or construction of the agreement are subject to the arbitration procedure, as prescribed by the Exchange provisions, so the complainant has no right to seek any relief for want of jurisdictions.
They also said that the objective behind opening the account was commercial and in view of the terms 2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, parties who avail services are excluded from the definition of the consumer and therefore the complainant is not a consumer and thus her complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. In their order, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that, 'The complainant has not made out any case under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to the effect that such trading is for her own employment and earning her livelihood, therefore she being not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, the dispute is not a consumer dispute.'
'From the facts of the present case and the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complainant has availed services for commercial purposes and therefore the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act,' the forum added.
Next Story