National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath, Presiding Member, held that the complainant was not investing money in the share market exclusively for earning his livelihood, hence the same was he did not fall under the definition of Consumer.
Instant revision was filed by the petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The revision petition was filed with a delay of 116 days.
Factual Background
The complainant/petitioner had purchased 2000 equity shares of Aravinda Remedies and 200 equity shares of Reliance Power Ltd. by making payments of Rs 13,700 and Rs 49,400 respectively. The OP delivered 1000 shares of Aravinda remedies instead 2000 shares amounting to Rs 6,850 leaving a refundable amount of Rs 6,850.
Further, OP delivered 200 shares of Reliance amounting to Rs 47,400 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 and Share Broking Services without intimation to the complainant.
The OP also did not make a payment of Rs 27,480 being the differential price of the share which were credited to the Demat account of the complainant.
Aggrieved by the non-refunding of the aforesaid amount by the OP, the complainant filed the consumer complaint.
Complaint was partly allowed before the District Forum and on being aggrieved with the same, the complainant approached the State Commission, wherein the matter was remanded to District Forum and the forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Further, the State Commission also dismissed the appeal since the transactions involved were commercial in nature.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Maintainability
State Commission had dismissed the complaint with the observation that the complainant was not a “consumer” as he was dealing in the share market.
As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails services for consideration. The said section, however, carves out an exception by providing that the person who purchases goods or hires/avails services for the commercial purposes shall not be included in the definition of consumer.
Though Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) provides that if such services are availed exclusively for earning livelihood, he will be considered as a “Consumer”.
State Commission relied on the Judgment of this Commission in Steel City Securities Ltd. v. G.P. Ramesh, Revision Petition No. 3060 of 2011 and dismissed the complaint with the observation that the transaction was commercial in nature and the complainant was not a “consumer”.
Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 224 was also cited, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court still holds good.
“33. Certainly, clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act do not arise in this case. Therefore, what requires to be examined is, whether any unfair trade practice has been adopted. The expression ‘unfair trade practice’ as per rules shall have the same meaning as defined under Section 36-A of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. That again cannot apply because the company is not trading in shares. The share means a share in the capital. The object of issuing the same is for building up capital. To raise capital, means making arrangements for carrying on the trade. It is not a practice relating to the carrying of any trade. Creation of share capital without allotment of shares does not bring shares into existence. Therefore, our answer is that a prospective investor like the respondent or the association is not a consumer under the Act. Q. 2: Whether the appellant company trades in shares?”
Hence, the complainant was not a consumer and the state commission had passed a well-reasoned order. [Baidyanath Mondal v. Kanahaya Lal Rathi, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 62, decided on 29-4-2022]
Advocates before the Commission:
For the Petitioner: Mr Sahej Uban, Advocate with Petitioner in Person
For the Respondent: Mr Kanhaiya Lal Rathi (Respondent No.3 in person and
AR for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2)