Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The opposite parties have further pleaded that all the details of trading account of the complainant were duly sent at the e-mail address of the complainant and also on his mobile number by way of SMS, against which the complainant did not lodge any complaint with them; that the complainant had voluntarily signed the instruction slips and handed over the same to the opposite parties; that the opposite party No. 1 is one of the Directors of United Share Brokers Limited and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the employees of United Share Brokers Limited; that the opposite parties have got no concern with the management of Globe Capital Market Ltd.; that opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 are the Directors of Sukesh Jain Commodities Pvt. Ltd.; that the opposite party No. 2 has got no concern with Sukesh Jain Commodities Pvt. Ltd.; that the opposite party No. 1 is the Director of Sukesh Jain Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., whereof the opposite party No. 2 is an employee and opposite party No. 3 has got no concern with Sukesh Jain Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.; that the complainant is fully aware of share market business as he is dealing in shares since past few years; that the complainant also makes investment in future trading; that the opposite parties have not misused the funds of the complainant; that the complainant has lodged complaint against the opposite parties with National Stock Exchange of India Limited, which was later on dismissed; that the complainant has lodged an FIR against the opposite parties and has also filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 821 of 2012; Rakesh Chandra Kaushik Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; that the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital per order dated 11.04.2013; that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the consumer complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and is liable to be dismissed.

13. From the above-quoted definition of "consumer", it is abundantly clear that the person who avails the services for any commercial purpose or the person who is engaged in any commercial activity, does not fall under the definition of "consumer" and can not be said to be consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The "commercial purpose" means generating profit and engaged in the activity not for the purpose of earning the livelihood.

14. In the present case, in para 1 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has himself stated that he is a retailer of computer parts and is running the business under the name and style of M/s Hindustan Computers and Peripherals. Thus, the said business is being done by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the complainant is earning his livelihood by the income generated from the said business. Hence, the complainant has engaged himself in share trading business not for the purpose of earning his livelihood. In para 1 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has also stated that for past few years, he is engaged in share activities and is investing his savings in shares. Investment means generating profit from the amount so invested. The complainant has nowhere averred in his consumer complaint that he has invested his money in shares not for earning profit. The same is also not the source of livelihood for the complainant, because the complainant is earning his livelihood from the business run by him under the name and style of M/s Hindustan Computers and Peripherals. The fact that the complainant has himself stated that for past few years, he has been investing his money in shares, goes to show that the complainant has been investing his money in shares for earning profit and hence it can be safely be said that the complainant is engaged in commercial activity and hence the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" as provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, as such, his consumer complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

17. The complainant also can not be said to be unaware of the risk involved in the share market, as he has himself admitted in his consumer complaint that for the past few years, he has been dealing in shares, which further proves the fact that the complainant is indulged in share trading business for the purpose of earning profit and, as stated above, the same is not the source of earning his livelihood by the complainant and hence he is not covered under the definition of "consumer" as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made by the complainant show that the complainant has stated that different kinds of allurement were given to him by the opposite parties and he acceded to the said allurements. If it is treated that the opposite parties have given the alleged allurements to the complainant, then the complainant can not fall under the definition of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the reason that as per the own case of the complainant, he acceded / agreed to the said allurements made by the opposite parties, i.e., to say that he agreed to invest his money in share trading business with an intent to earn huge profit / gain not for the purpose of earning his livelihood, which makes the whole transaction a "commercial purpose".

21. Further, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Steel City Securities Ltd. Vs. G.P. Ramesh and another; I (2014) CPJ 576 (NC), has held that the sale purchase of shares is a commercial purpose and trading in shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profit and the complainant is not a consumer.

22. In view of the above factual position and the law cited above, it can safely be held that the complainant in the present case does not fall under the definition of "consumer" as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he has invested money in shares for earning profit, i.e., for commercial purpose and hence the consumer complaint filed by him is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and is liable to be dismissed as such.