National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sh. Shashikant S Timmapur vs . Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., on 24 July, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2752-2754 OF 2011 (From the order dated 17.06.2011 in Appeal No. 2165-2167 of 2010 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) Sh. Shashikant S Timmapur Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Subhash Galli, 2nd Cross, Old Gandhi Nagar Belgaum 590 016 Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., A Registered Company Karvy Center/House, 46, Avenue 4, Street No.1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 2. The Branch Manager Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., FK 1 Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum 590 002 Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) REVISION PETITION NO. 3300-3301 OF 2011 (From the order dated 17.06.2011 in Appeal No. 2612 & 2613 of 2010 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) Sh. Shashikant S Timmapur Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Subhah Galli, 2nd Cross, Old Gandhi Nagar Belgaum 590 016 Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. The Managing Director The Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., 529, Road No. 4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 2. The Territory Manager The Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., FK 1 Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum 590 002 Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) REVISION PETITION NO. 3721 to 3725 OF 2012 (From the order dated 28.05.2012 in Appeal Nos. 4656 to 4660 of 2010 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) Shashikant S Timmapur Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, SIDDA-GANGA NIVAS CTS No.11758/B, Subhash Galli, 2nd Cross, Main Road, Old Gandhi Nagar Belgaum 590 016 KARNATAKA, INDIA Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. The Managing Director Karvy Stock Brocking Ltd., 529, Road No. 4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA 2. The Territory Manager The Karvy Stock Brocking Ltd., FK 1 Khimajibhai Complex Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum 590 002 KARNATAKA, INDIA Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person PRONOUNCED ON 24th July, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER Revision Petition Nos. 2752-2754 of 2011, 3300-3301 of 2011 and 3721-3725 of 2012 have been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned orders dated 17.06.2011 and dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 2165-2167 of 2010, in Appeal Nos. 2612 & 2613 of 2010 and in Appeal Nos. 4656 to 4660 of 2010 Shashikant S Timmapur Vs. The Managing Director, Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeals, orders of District Forum dismissing complaints were upheld.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that complainant/petitioner filed 10 complaints, which are as under:
1. Complaint No. 348/07 dated 12.12.07 Complainant submitted that he is a businessman and deals in shares trading. Complainant is availing services of OP for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment of trade in shares and securities. It was further alleged that inspite of credit balance in his account, his order for selling 150 shares of ICRA, 20 shares of TITAN Industries Ltd. were not sold on 22.10.2007 and caused loss of Rs.50,000/-. It was further alleged that his request for purchase of 1000/- shares of Siemens India Ltd. was dishonoured and he suffered loss of Rs.3,00,000/-
on account of deficiency on the part of OPs.
2. Complaint No. 349/07 dated 10.12.07 Complainant alleged that on 31.10.2007, OP stopped trading in complainants account illegally. Complainant handed over cheque of Rs.20,08,000/- to OPs operator and placed order for purchase of 4,000 shares of IVRCL and sale of 150 shares of ICRA Company, but orders were not executed and claimed compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- for deficiency.
3. Complaint No. 18/08 dated 11.01.08 - Complainant placed order for purchase of 6000 shares of IVRCL, 4,000 shares of GBN Ltd., 2000 shares of Mindtree Consulting Ltd. These shares were purchased by OP, but order for sale placed on 16.3.2007 were not executed and caused loss of Rs.6,25,000/- and claimed aforesaid loss along with unliquidated damaged Rs.12,50,000/-.
4. Complaint No. 19/08 dated 11.01.08 Complainant placed order for sale of some shares, but order was not executed. OP-1 agreed to pay Rs.1,78,000/- for deficiency in service and out of that credited Rs.20,000/- in account of complainant, but has not paid balance Rs.1,58,000/-.
5. Complaint No. 20/08 dated 11.01.08 OP unauthorisedly transferred 150 shares of ICRA Ltd. from complainants account and withdrawn Rs.42,354.50 from complainants account without complainants request and caused loss of Rs.1,53,027.37 and thus claimed Rs.3,53,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,00,000/- as unliquidated damages.
6. Complaint No. 21/08 dated 11.01.08 Complainant purchased 3950 shares of ICRA on 17.4.2007.
On 18.4.2007, OP sold 3800 shares without complainants consent and caused loss of Rs.8,20,000/-. On 25.4.2007, complainant purchased 1000 shares of Tulip IT Services Ltd., but in spite of sale order, shares were not sold and caused loss of Rs.88,000/- and thus, claimed loss of Rs.9,08,000/- and unliquidated damage of Rs.
10,00,000/-.
7. Complaint No. 04/09 dated 06.01.09 Complainant submitted that he is doing large scale transaction with the OP. OP blocked his account and did not allow to transact allotted 200 equity shares of Tata Steel Ltd. and thus, claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
8. Complaint No. 471/09 dated 23.7.09 Complainant alleged that on account of non-providing of exposure to his account by OP, he could not book profit of shares of ICRA Ltd. and claimed Rs.3,56,400/-.
9. Complaint No. 472/09 dated 23.07.09 Complainant was not allowed to sell 100 shares of Bank of Maharashtra and claimed compensation of Rs.32,275/-.
10. Complaint No. 473/09 dated 23.07.09 - Complainant alleged that he was not allowed to sell 250 shares of CIPLA Ltd. and claimed unliquidated damage of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. OP/respondent contested complaints, filed reply and submitted that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and further submitted that on account of Arbitration Clause, District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Further denied any deficiency on the part of OPs and submitted that on account of not maintaining margin money in the account for trading and complainant had already filed complaints before District Forum, he was not allowed to operate his trading account and prayed for dismissal of complaints.
4. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum dismissed complaints. Appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned orders against which, these revision petitions have been filed.
5. Heard the petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.
6. Petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner was having Demat account with respondents and was availing services of respondent in doing transactions of sale and purchase of shares, respondent committed deficiency in not executing his orders, even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaints and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals; hence, revision petitions be admitted.
7. Admittedly, complainant has filed 10 complaints, out of which, 4 complaints on 11.1.2008, 3 complaints on 23.7.2009 against the OP, though; he could have filed consolidated complaints on 11.1.2008 and on 23.7.2009. In all the complaints, complainant admitted that he is a businessman and deals in share trading. No doubt, he has mentioned in the complaints that he has availed the services of the respondents exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, but looking to the volume of his transactions, it cannot be inferred that complainant availed services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, but it can very well be presumed that he was availing services of OP for commercial purposes for sale and purchase of shares and in such circumstances, the complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer under Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, in 1 (2009) CPJ 316 - Ramendra Nath Basu Vs. Sanjeev Kapoor & Anr. has held that share trading transactions between parties do not come under purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Learned Delhi State Commission in case III (2000) CPJ 291 - Anand Prakash Vs. A.M. Johri & Ors. held that sale-purchase of shares are commercial transactions and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer.
10. This Commission in R.P. No. 1179 of 2012 A. Asaithambi Vs. Company Secretary Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Ors. also held that sale and purchase of shares are commercial transactions and does not fall within the purview of consumer.
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 36840 of 2012 (A. Asithambi Vs. Company Secretary Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Ors.) filed against this judgment was dismissed in limine by Honble Supreme Court on 14.12.2012. This Commission also took same view in O.P. No. 287 of 2001 - Dr. V.K. Agarwal Vs. M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
& Ors. Decided on 24.7.2012 and in R.P. No. 3345 of 2012 M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Ganapati Finsec Pvt. Ltd. decided on 12.7.2013. In F.A. No. 362 of 2011 Ganapati Parmeshwar Kashi & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Anr., this Commission observed as under:
Apart from this, State Commission also held that since the appellants had alleged that they had suffered loss as they could not trade due to suspension of accounts, were not consumers as the dispute related to loss and profit from the share business of the appellants.
We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.
Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 14.1.2013 and observed as under:
ii) The concurrent finding recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the petitioners cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is based on analysis of the pleadings filed by the parties. The DMAT Account was opened by the petitioners purely for commercial transactions. Therefore, they were rightly not treated as consumer so as to entitle them to claim compensation by filing complaint under the 1986 Act.
11. In the light of aforesaid judgments, as complainant/petitioner was a businessman and availing services of OPs for sale and purchase of shares in heavy volume for earning huge profits, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeals and affirming order of District Forum dismissing complaints.
12. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed at admission stage
13. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
..
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k