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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more