Skip to main content

Share traders not consumers, rules consumer panel

The state consumer disputes redressal commission has held that compensation cannot be given under the Consumer Protection Act to those involved in sale and purchase of shares, which are commercial transactions.

Relying on several judgments that reiterate the above view, the Goa state consumer disputes redressal commission has reversed the order of the North Goa district consumer forum which awarded damages to a couple, who lost money in share trading through a stock broker.

In its recent order, commission president N A Britto and member Jagdish Prabhudesai observed that, "The Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses".

The order follows an appeal by Mumbai-based stock broker India Infoline Limited against an order of the North Goa district consumer forum, which awarded damages to Panaji-resident Vaman Nagesh Usapkar and his wife.

They had claimed that they suffered a loss of 1,72,020 which they sought to recover from the stockbroker after filing a complaint on December 30, 2009.

In fact, the Usapkars held the Goa representatives of India Infoline - the branch manager and the relationship manager - who traded on their behalf, responsible for their loss.

In its order dated October 18, 2012, two members of the district forum held the complainants to be consumers and awarded to them a sum of 1,72,020 towards the loss with interest at the rate of 18% from December 30, 2009, till payment and also compensation of 50,000 besides awarding costs of 15,000. But the third member of the forum dissented and held that the complainants were not consumers and that their case was liable to be dismissed.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Usapkars argued that the stockbroker's representatives did the transactions without his clients' consent.

He also argued that Vaman Usapkar is 'in service' and therefore any investment by him could not be commercial.

But the stockbroker's advocate submitted that the Usapkars had given their occupation as "business" and that they had entered into an agreement with the stockbroker for trading in shares which is a commercial activity.

But the Goa consumer commission ruled that the Usapkars did not fall within the purview of consumers under section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Comment:

There still remains some ambiguity in the definition. A person buys a property intending to stay. But later sells that. Is that a commercial transaction ? Actually, there are many facets to this. It would have to be seen why did he sell and did he buy another again ? So each case has to be treated individually which is why though judgment on share trading have been given several times in the past, they are admitted by the court and heard.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Goa/Share-traders-not-consumers-rules-consumer-panel/articleshow/34016076.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...