Share investment complaints not treated as consumer disputes

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2016
Order Dt.29-04-2022

Case of the Complainant/Petitioner is that he purchased equity shares of two companies by making payment of Rs.13,700/- and Rs.49,400/- respectively. The Opposite Party delivered short shares leaving a refundable amount to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also did not make payment of Rs.27,480/- being the differential price of the shares which were credited to the Demat account of the Complainant.  Aggrieved by non-refunding of the aforesaid amount by the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.72/2011 before the District Forum.

The Opposite Party did not appear before the District Forum and the Complaint was partly allowed ex-parte, vide order dated 11.05.2012, with a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.8,810/- to the Complainant, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the case till realization.

Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No.463/2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 08.02.2013, remanded the matter to the District Forum for deciding the Complaint afresh. In compliance of the order of the State Commission, the District Forum, vide order dated 28.01.2014, dismissed the Complaint as barred by limitation.

The State Commission, vide order dated 19.07.2016, dismissed the Appeal as not maintainable since the transactions involved in the case were commercial in nature.

The Complainant thereafter filed a Revision Petition at NCDRC. NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition, upholding the State Commission’s order dismissing the First Appeal made by the Complainant, with following reasons:

“The above facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the transactions involved in the case on hand are commercial activities and such commercial activities are not exclusively for the purpose of self-employment of the Appellant/Complainant and thus the Appellant/Complainant is not covered by inclusive explanation appended to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, the Appellant/Complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.”

—–