DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ============ Consumer Complaint No : CC/576/2015 Date of Institution : 28/08/2015 Date of Decision : 01/01/2018 Rajat Gupta son of Late Shri Om Parkash Gupta, C/o Oasis Industries 26/6, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh ? 160002. ??? Complainant. Versus (1) Berkeley Commodities Limited, SCO 143-144, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh - 160009, through its Branch Manager. (2) MCX (Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited), Kanchanjunga, Upper Gr Floor, 18, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi ? 110001, through V.P. North Head. ??. Opposite Parties BEFORE: SMT.SURJEET KAUR PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAVINDER SINGH MEMBER For Complainant : Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate. For Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate. For Opposite Party No.2 : Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate. PER MRS.SURjeet kaur, PRESIDING MEMBER Sh. Rajat Gupta has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Berkeley Commodities Limited & Anr. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that allured by the dreamy pictures projected by the Opposite Parties of fetching good returns on investing in their Commodities/fund, the Complainant invested Rs.50,000/- on 19.02.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 09.03.2010, Rs.25,000/- on 24.03.2010 and Rs.10,000/- on 24.01.2011. Thereafter, whenever the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties to know about the status of his account or his commodities, the Opposite Parties did not disclose the true picture. However, later, the Complainant startlingly learnt that the Opposite Parties have been speculating with his funds, unilaterally, on account of which he was left with literally no funds in his account. This forced the Complainant to approach the MCX with the Complaint highlighting the irregularities and shortcomings in the services of the Opposite Parties. It has been further alleged that on the directions of the MCX, the Complainant filed a representation with the Arbitrator and on 03.01.2013 the Complainant was convinced to accept a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the Opposite Parties on that date. However, on coming to know that the Opposite Parties had managed to misguide the Arbitrator to get the matter settled on fabricated documents, the Complainant made an application for re-consideration of the claim, which was ultimately turned down vide order Annexure C-6. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has admitted that it is a Trading Member of MCX (Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited) i.e. Opposite Party No.2. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was very much aware about the continuous/regular trading of his account and in this respect regular intimation was provided to him in the form of sending contract notes, confirmation on e-mail I.D etc. The Complainant with respect to the dispute in question had already approached the Arbitrator and settled the matter, therefore, the present Complaint is not maintainable being barred by the principles of Res-judicata. It is for this reason only that the application of the Complainant to reconsider the said settled award was also dismissed by the Ld. Arbitrator, as no such reconsideration of the award is permitted under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has pleaded that it only provided a trading platform to Opposite Party No.1 for buying and selling of Commodities, future contracts on the platform of the Exchange. Also, the answering Opposite Party does not sell and/or purchase any commodity future contracts, but only overseas the orderly settlement of transactions executed on Opposite Party No.2 trading platform between Opposite Party No.1 through the Clearing House of the Exchange. Thus, the answering Opposite Party merely acts as a facilitator between the Member and the Client, to the trades happening on the trading platform of the Opposite Party No.2 and is not a party to the trades that happen on the exchange. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the written statements filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 have been controverted. Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties and have also perused the material placed on record. The Complainant has raised the dispute in respect of trading transactions being carried out in his account I.D. We feel that trading transaction is a commercial transaction and not for earning his livelihood. As such, the Complainant would not be a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore, in view of the Circular/Notice No. 20150715/17 dated 15.07.2015, placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure R-1, issued by the Exchange, the disputes regarding trading transactions are commercial transactions, therefore, the cases against the Stock Brokers does not fall within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant extract of the said notice/circular issued by the Exchange to all the Trading Members is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of precision: - ?Trading Members are hereby informed that the Exchange is in receipt of a letter dated July 09, 2015 from SEBI regarding cases filed by clients of stock brokers against stock brokers before various consumer forums. As stated in the said SEBI letter, it may be noted that as per settled law, regular trading in shares to earn profits are in the nature of commercial transactions. Where a person engages a broker for the purpose of regular purchase and sale of shares it falls within the scope of commercial purpose. Hence any dispute arising solely out of such commercial transactions may not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the purpose of seeking any relief thereunder. All the members are requested to take note of the same.? It is evident from the afore-extracted notice/circular that any dispute arising solely out of trading transaction does not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To cap it all, it is important to note that all said and done makes a clear pointer towards the fact the Complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and is infact indulged in commercial trading transactions only with the intention to earn huge profits. There is not even an iota of evidence to reveal that the Complainant did trading with the Opposite Parties for his livelihood. The word ?Consumer? in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, clearly lays down that the consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for sale or for any commercial purpose. What is commercial purpose, was decided by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC). Consequently, in view the above facts as well as the Circular/Notice (Annexure R-1) on the subject, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is not covered under the definition of ?Consumer? as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Forum is not armed with the power to decide commercial transactions. Resultantly, the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed, being not maintainable. The parties are left to bear their own costs. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for Redressal of his grievances and also seek exclusion of limitation, as per law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (supra). Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 01st January, 2018 Sd/- (SURJEET KAUR) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (RAVINDER SINGH) MEMBER ?Dutt?