w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sudhangsu Bhusan Dutta v/s The Joint Managing Director Mansukh Securities & Finance Ltd. & Others

    Revision Petition No. 3367 of 2013

    Decided On, 16 April 2014

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Amitava Poddar, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------



Judgment Text

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member

1. There is delay of 41 days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is hereby condoned.

2. The State Commission, while placing reliance on Unit Trust of India Vs. Savitri Devi Agarwal, 2000-CPR-2-5, and Morgan Stanley Vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on the ground that his case pertains to shares and the consumer fora have got no jurisdiction to try his case.

3. The case of Sudhansgsu Bhusan Dutta, the complainant/ petitioner is that he purchased some shares of Reliance Industries and other companies. At the request of Mr.Biswarup Basu and Mrs. Bhaswati Basu, OP2, the complainant invested his shares with the Joint Managing Director, Mansukh Securities and Finance Ltd., OP1, and in the process, handed over all his shares to OP1, with a direction to deposit the amounts in DMAT account of the complainant for the purpose of share trading. OP2, instead of transferring the shares to the account of the complainant, transferred the same to his wife’s and his own account. Report was lodged with the Police Station.

4. District Forum allowed the complaint, but the learned State Commission, reversed the same, as discussed above.

5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner is not an investor and these are different kind of shares.

6. However, it stands proved that the entire case revolves around the shares. The petitioner himself has admitted that he is an investor. This Bench, vide order dated 01.08.2012, in RP No.1179/2012, titled A.Asaithambi Vs. The Company Secretary & Ors., placed reliance on paras 26,27, 33, 34 and 35 of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225, and dismissed the complaint.

7. In that case, reliance was also placed on SomNath Jain Vs. R.C. Goenka & Anr., reported in 1 (1994) CPJ 27 (NC), West Bengal State Commission, in case Ramendra Nath Basu Vs. Sanjeev Kapoor & Anr., 1 (2009) CPJ 316 and Delhi State Commission in case Anand Prakash Vs. A.M. Johri & Ors., III (2000) CPJ 291.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of this Bench (RP No.1179/2012) (supra) a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.36840 of 2013, titled A.AsaithambiVs. The Company Secretary & Ors, wasfiled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed.

9. In another case reported in GanapathiParmeshwar Kashi & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Anr, in First Appeal No. 362 of 2011, decided on 21.08.2012, pertaining to DMAT account, this Commission dismissed the same.

10. Aggrieved by the said order a Special Leave to Appela (Civil) No.5401 of 2013, titled Ganapathi Parmeshwar Kashi & Arn. Vs. Bank of India & Anr., was filed, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :-

ii) The concurrent finding recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the petitioners cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is based on analysis of the pleadings filed

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

by the parties. The DMAT account was opened by the petitioners purely for commercial transactions. Therefore, they were rightly not treated as consumer so as to entitle them to claim compensation by filing complaint under the 1986 Act'. 11. The revision petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R