State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri S Manu vs M/S Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., on 10 July, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1049/2011 ( Date of Filing : 10 Mar 2011 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/12/2010 in Case No. CC/64/2010 of District Tumkur) 1. Sri S Manu s/o S K Shivananjappa Aged about 50 years, occ: Asst.Master, Sri.Gangadhareshwara Residential High School, K.Palasandra at and Post, Gulooru Hobli, Tumkur Tq & Dist. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., NSEL,1st Floor,Shanthala Clinic, Vivekananda Road,Tumkur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 10 Jul 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1049/2011 Sri. S. Manu, S/o S. K. Shivananjappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Asst. Master. Sri. Gangadhareshwara Residential High School. K. Palasandra At and Post, Gulooru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk & District. (By Sri K.R.Kumar, Advocate). ......Appellant V/s M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., NSEL, 1st Floor, Shanthala Clinic, Vivekananda Road, Tumkur. (By Sri M.S Narayan, Advocate) .....Respondent/s O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2010 passed in CC.No.64/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
It is grievance of the complainant that he got enrolled on 09-01-2007 as a client of the respondent company with trading account No: 278752. The complainant was doing trade business purchasing shares in the market for less price and to sell where the prices of the share increased in his holding shares account. The complainant had a contract/agreement between the opposite party. It is contended by the complainant that, during the period from 29-10-2007 to 13-12-2007, the OP has unauthorized without the consent of the complainant sold the holding shares from the account of the complainant resulting financial losses of more than Rs. 1,21,000/- . On the receipt of the statement of account, the complainant made a written objection in writing on 30-12-2007, bringing to the notice regarding discrepancy in the account and requested the OP to rectify and reimburse the amount.
3. The complainant sent another letter through RPAD on 21-02-2009, again there was no reply nor any correspondence received in this regard. Therefore, he caused a legal notice on 06-05-2009 through RPAD and certificate of posting. After receipt of the said legal notice, the OP has orally called the complainant for the settlement amicably with the Account Manager of the OP. Accordingly, through negotiation the OP has offered Rs. 50,000/- for full and final settlement for which the complainant disagreed. Hence this complaint.
4. The OP appeared through his advocate and filed his objection, it is contended that the complainant as brought out by the complainant is both maintainable in law nor on facts and as such it deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of sec 2(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service so as to maintain the complaint as per 2 (g) of the Act. Further, the OP has contended that from 01-04-2006 to 11-03-2010 has earned profit and at that time the complainant was due a sum of Rs. 68,826-67. It has also produced the statement of accounts at Ex R 5 regarding the transactions had from 01-04-2006 to 11-03-2010. It is also contended that, the said complaint is barred by limitation as per section 24 (a) of the Act. Thus, it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore the prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. After trial, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. Both parties have filed written arguments with citations.
8. Perused appeal memo Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant has doing the trade business purchasing shares for less price and to sell it when share price were increased. It is also not in dispute that agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent.
9. The allegation of the appellant is that during the period from 29.10.2007 to 13.12.2007, respondent has without the consent of the appellant sold the older shares from the account of the appellant which results financial loss of more than 1,21,000/- to the appellant. In spite of several letters and legal notice respondent has called the appellant for settlement and offered 50,000/- as full and final settlement. However, the appellant disagree the same.
10. Per-contra, the Respondent contended that complaint filed by the appellant before District Commission is not maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the appellant is not consumer U/s 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
11. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission relied on the judgments produced by the respondent, dismissed the complaint and complainant does not come purview of the CP Act and complainant is not a consumer. We agree with the order passed by the District Commission because who buys shares as an investment they are not the consumers. However, regular trading in the purchase and sale of shares is a commercial transaction and the only motive is to earn profit which does not come under the purview of CP Act. It is settled law that the transaction regarding the sale and purchase of the shares are commercial transaction and person engaged in said transaction cannot be termed as consumer as per definition of CP Act. Moreover, the appellant himself stated that he has doing trade business to purchase and sale of shares. Moreover, it is evident that the copy of statement of accounts, the appellant has made several transactions between 01.04.2006 to 11.03.2016 which discloses that the appellant has engaged in trade business.
12. Hence, considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER