Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/531/2019

Sanchita Goyal S/o Shri Gopi Krishna Todi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Securities Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.P. Singh

11 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 531/2019

 

Sanchita Goyal d/o Gopikrishan Todi r/o B 81 Parshvnath Marg, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Kotak Securities Ltd. Green House, O 15, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 11.10.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.R.P.Singh counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned

 

2

 

District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 9.5.2019 whereby the complaint is dismissed on the ground that complainant is doing share trading business could not fall under the definition of complainant.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The contention of the appellant is that she is doing trading business to earn the livelihood hence, the claim should have been allowed. Copy of the complaint has been supplied by the counsel for the complainant. In para no. 1 of the complaint it has been specifically mentioned that complainant appellant is doing trading since last ten years and in para no. 1 or in any other para it has not been pleaded that she is doing the share trading for self employment.

 

The contention of the appellant is that in para no. 18 she has pleaded so but in para no. 18 this much has been said that as the money was handed over to the opposite party the complainant is a consumer and relation of consumer and

 

3

 

 

service provider between the parties but no where in the complaint it has been stated that she was doing business for self employment.

 

The appellant has relied upon IV (2016) CPJ 447 (NC) Pankaj Kumar Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd. where no evidence was submitted to show that the complainant is in regular business of sale and purchase of shares but here in the present case this is the admission of the complainant appellant herself that she is engaged in the share trading business from last ten years and reliance could be placed on II (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) Vijay Kumar Vs. Indusind Bank where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“ Petitioner has nowhere pleaded in its entire complaint that he is doing share trading business as 'self employment for livelihood'. Nor it has been alleged that the services provided by the respondent, were being availed of exclusively for the purpose of earning of his livelihood by means of self employment by the petitioner. Dispute between the parties relating to

 

 

 

4

 

 

commercial purposes are excluded under the Act.”

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm