J.A.MAXWELL D CRUZ' DICK HOUSE vs CENTRE FOR SHARES INVESTMENT STUDY

HIS complaint having been dismissed by the District Forum, the appeal has been preferred by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had asked the opposite parties on 24.8.1992 to purchase 50 shares in Shree Cements and 100 shares in Bharat Pipes. The complainant was informed that the shares had been purchased and for that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 9,380/-. The opposite parties assured the complainant that two lots of share certificates would be sent to the complainant but they did not do so. However, the opposite parties informed the complainant that 100 shares of Bharat Pipes and 50 shares of Shree Cements were standing in the name of the complainant and they did not show any records therefor. But believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant directed the opposite parties to purchase 100 J.R.F. shares and sent the memos of confirmation alongwith the statement of accounts and further to send 50 Shree Cements share certificates. But the opposite parties failed to comply with the said demand in spite of reminders. The opposite party promised to refund half of the money by 28.10.1993 and the balance in December, 1993. But they failed to do so. The complainant therefore demanded refund of Rs. 9,380/- with interest thereon, but it was of no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint was filed.

THE opposite parties contended that the transaction in question did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings, held that the shares have been purchased for re-sale and therefore the said purchase of shares was for commercial purpose and hence the transaction did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. On this finding, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Now in the appeal, we find that the view held by the District Forum is not correct. The pleadings disclose that the opposite party was asked to render service to the complainant for purchase of certain shares. What is involved in this matter is "service". The question of commercial purpose arises only in the case of purchase of goods. Hence, the order of the District Forum saying that the transaction is for commercial purpose, is not correct.

IN this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and remand the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations. Appeal allowed.