1. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she had deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with India Bulls Securities Ltd., for the purpose of earning her livelihood. The petitioner claims to be a house wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that one Mr. Jameer, an employee of India Bulls Securities had conducted several transactions of sale and purchase of shares on her behalf and after his resigning from the services of India Bulls Securities, another employee of the said company, namely Mr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, contacted her to allow him to continue trading on her behalf but the complainant refused such a permission. This is also her grievance that the entire amount of Rs.2,27,000/- which was available in her account in November, 2006 was transferred to the Future & Options, and that resulted in loss of the entire amount. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the complainant initially made a complaint to the National Stock Exchange and then filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,27,000/- along with interest and compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent of directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,285.34/- to her, along with compensation amounting to Rs.2,000/- and cost amounting to Rs.1,000/-. 2. Being aggrieved from the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner the State Commission, inter alia, held as under: he complainant relied on the decision reported in II (2012) CPJ 382 (NC) in India Bulls Financial Services and another v. Varghese Sakaria and another wherein the National Commission held that if purpose of investing money in share is to earn livelihood after retirement, it does not amount to commercial transaction. Basing on the aforementioned decision, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant invested her hard earned savings, gifts from her parents and also borrowed the amounts from others deposited Rs.2,60,000/- with the opposite party for earning her livelihood and therefore she comes within the definition of consumer. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is engaged in trading of shares which is speculative transaction as held in the decisions reported in II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) in Vijay Kumar v. Indus Ind Bank, R.P.No.2821/2012 dated 10-4-2013 in Sri Chandrasekhar Mishra vs. Indiabulls Securities Limited and others and R.P.Nos.719/2012 and batch dated 08-1-2014 and as such the consumer complaint is not maintainable. In Revision petition No.2821/2012 aforesaid, several other decisions of National Commission were referred to and the substance of the said decisions is also that where the complainant was engaged in trading of shares, it is a speculative transaction and Consumer Protection Act is not applicable for entertaining or compensating losses in the speculative transactions, such cases have to be filed before competent authorities before SBEL Act. Referring to a decision in Gautam Das V. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., reported in 2010(4) CPR (NC), the National Commission held that the complainant, a shareholder, cannot be the consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the complainant contended in the complaint that she purchased the shares for her livelihood, no where she clarified that she is an unemployee and invested the money for livelihood under self employment. It appears that deliberately she suppressed her occupation in the complaint etc., and by using the word for earning her livelihood she designed the complaint to file it before the consumer Forum. In view of the legal position, we are convinced to hold that the consumer complaint is not maintainable for want of inherent jurisdiction and in such circumstances factual aspects need not be gone into. Thus the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and when the order is not sustainable, the question of enhancing the amount also does not arise and in such circumstances documents received as additional evidence under Exs.A14 to A17 are not helpful to the complainant. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a house wife as stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint made by her and, therefore, the State Commission was not correct in saying that she had not disclosed her occupation. Even if I proceed on the assumption that the petitioner is a house wife and did not have any other source of income as is claimed by her, it would be extremely difficult to accept that she had invested money to be used for carrying out transaction of sale and purchase of shares, for the purpose of earning her livelihood. In case, the petitioner wanted to earn some income for the purpose of her livelihood, she would have invested the money in instruments such as bank FDR or a debt instrument where she could get interest on regular basis. She could also invest in the units of a mutual fund from where she could get dividend on regular basis. But, to say that she had invested money for the purpose of earning her livelihood by engaging in transaction of sale and purchase of shares is highly unbelievable and cannot be accepted. I am in agreement with the State Commission that transactions of sale and purchase of shares are in the nature of speculative trading since it is not necessary that the prices of the shares would always go up resulting in accrual of income to the investor, on account of increase in the prices of shares. The prices of the shares may go down substantially in case share market is depressed at the relevant time and that may result in substantial reduction or even wiping out of the entire capital invested in the share market. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to say that such a transaction would be speculative and thereby a commercial transaction which is not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission, therefore, was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the transactions were not carried out without authorization from her. This is petitioner own case that as far as Mr. Jameer is concerned, he had carried out the transactions with her consent. Therefore, it would not be said that she had not engaged in the activity of sale and purchase of shares, through the employees of India Bulls Securities. In any case, since the consumer fora would have no jurisdiction in the matter, it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the allegations made in the complaint. I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.