V.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) The complainant / appellant opened Demat Account with respondent No.1 in India Infoline Ltd. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that respondent No.3 - Siddesh A. Prabhudesai, an employee of respondent No.1 carried out unauthorized trading of shares in his Demat Account without his consent and caused heavy losses to him. This was brought by the complainant to the notice of respondent Nos.1 and 2 but, they did not address his complaint. This is also his case that by 20.10.2009, a loss of Rs.55,000/- had been caused to him. Therefore, he tried to close the account but was not allowed to do so and further trading was carried out by respondent No.3 from his Demat Account without his consent, causing him a loss of Rs.1,72,020/-. The loss happened on account of the shares mentioned in para 11 of the complaint having been sold without instructions from him. The complainants, therefore, approached concerned the District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking the above-referred amount of Rs.1,72,020/- with compensation, etc.
(2.) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not contest the consumer complaint. Respondent no.1 however, filed the written version contesting the complaint and interalia stated in its written version that the complainant had entered into a mutual agreement with respondent No.3 allowing him to trade into his account and on coming to know of this, respondent no.1 terminated the services of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(3.) The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, respondent No.1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 7.4.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.