Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 261/21 filed on 17/08/21
Complainant : Hemy Sebastian, Akkara House, St. Sebastian Street,
Ollur P.O., Thrissur – 680 306.
(By Advs. U. Ravisankar & Greeshma A Menon,
Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) M/s ECL. Finance Ltd., Edelweiss House,
Office – C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 098.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2) Prithiviraj K., Team Leader, ECL Finance Ltd.,
Edelweiss House, Off. C.S.T. Road, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 098.
3) Srinivas Raghammudi, Regional Head for ESOP,
Edelwiss Broking Ltd., #3, Manadi Plaza, 2nd Floor,
St. Marks Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
4) Dinesh Kumar G, Regional Head for sales &
Acquisition, Edelweiss Broking Ltd., #3,
Manadi Plaza, 2nd Floor, St. Marks Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
5) Niraj R Sharma, Senior Preferred Relationship
Manager, Edelweiss Broking Ltd., #3, Manadi Plaza,
2nd Floor, St. Marks Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- The complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant who is statedly an employee of the HDFC Bank, availed Employee Stock Option (ESOP) Loan Facilities on three occasions from the 1st opposite party company vide the Master Loan Agreement executed. The 2nd opposite party is the Team Leader of the 1st opposite party company. The 3rd to the 5th opposite parties are statedly the 1st opposite party’s employees based at their Bangalore office. Allegedly, the 3rd to the 5th opposite parties got several papers signed by the complainant. Moreover, the 3rd to the 5th opposite parties also failed to serve copy of the Master Loan Agreement to the complainant, despite several requests to that effect made by the complainant. The complainant states to have completely closed the 1st loan facility that he availed. Reportedly, the 2nd & the 3rd loan facilities (ESOP Loan A/C No.EHB0024782 & ESOP Loan A/c No.EHB0025370) were in respect of Rs.23,56,310.74 towards the purchase of 5000 shares and Rs.75,12,265.57 towards the purchase of 10,000 shares, respectively. The complainant states that the 5,000 shares purchased as per the 2nd loan facility were pledged by the opposite parties in accordance with the pledge instructions given to them along with the loan application. But he claims that the 1st & the 2nd opposite parties have not pledged the 10,000 shares availed under the 3rd loan facility, in spite of his having submitted necessary pledge instructions to that effect along with loan application. He claims to have forwarded the said pledge instructions to the 3rd to the 5th opposite parties by courier on 15/03/2020 and further claims the receipt of the same has been acknowledged on 17/03/2020. The Master Loan Agreement reportedly stipulates pledging shares equivalent to the 50% of the loan amount with the opposite parties. As a matter of abundant precaution, the complainant claims to have further transferred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the opposite parties on 23/03/2020 and additionally pledged 3,500 shares in favour of the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that the 3rd to the 5th opposite parties have not communicated these actions taken by the complainant to the 1st & the 2nd opposite parties, who in turn had consequently sold 4698 shares on 23/03/2020. This unauthorised sale of the shares that was attributed to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, statedly inflicted on the complainant a loss of Rs.33,53,151/-. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. A lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties statedly elicited no result. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to make up the loss he incurred, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Though being duly noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties have cared neither to enter appearance nor to file their written version before the Commission. Accordingly proceedings against the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A6, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite parties being set ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has very scrupulously examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is copy of the lawyer notice dtd.27/02/2021, issued to the opposite parties. Ext. A2 is copy of the Master Loan Agreement dtd.18/10/16. Ext. A3 is print out of the opposite parties email dtd. 11/12/2020 addressed to the complainant. Ext. A4 is print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 23/11/2020 addressed to the opposite parties. Ext. A5 is print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 03/11/2020 addressed to the opposite parties. Ext. A6 is print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 05/05/2021.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Maintainability ?
If point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant :
(ii) Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice ? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties ?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation
from the opposite parties ? If so, its quantum ?
(iv) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Admittedly, the complainant is an employee of HDFC Bank. The complaint relates to purchase of shares and also to its unauthorised sale by the opposite parties which allegedly inflicted financial loss, agony and hardship to the complainant. Obviously, a person purchases shares as a matter of investment. Such purchases, its consequent sale, other acts, services etc incidental thereto all are, unambiguously commercial in nature. Therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Hon’ble National Commission held the same view by its order dtd. 29/04/2020 in Baidyanath Mondal Vs Kanahaya Lal Rathi and others, 2022 SCC Online NCDRC 62. Therefore, Point No.(i) is proved against the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to agitate appropriate Forum for remedy if any required. Needless to mention the other points mentioned detailed above warrant no consideration of the Commission.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 copy of the lawyer notice dtd.27/02/2021, issued to the opposite
parties.
Ext. A2 copy of the Master Loan Agreement dtd.18/10/16.
Ext. A3 print out of the opposite parties email dtd. 11/12/2020 addressed to the
complainant.
Ext. A4 print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 23/11/2020 addressed to the
opposite parties.
Ext. A5 print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 03/11/2020 address to the
opposite parties.
Ext. A6 print out of the complainant’s email dtd. 05/05/2021.
Id/- Member
