SMC GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD Vs. ANIL KASLIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 against order dtd. 17/12/2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.1048/2017of 2018, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Complainants are the husband and wife. Opposite Party No.1 is a Financial Company. Opposite Party No.2/Petitioner is the Broker of Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainants/Respondents Nos.1 and 2 is that on 16/1/2013 they made fixed deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs in a scheme launched by Opposite Party No.1, Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. for one year, vide FD receipt No.1205067. As per the scheme, the Complainants were to receive 11.5% interest on maturity. The Complainants got the FD renewed for a further period of one year with the same terms and conditions. Due to financial constraints, the Complainants approached the Petitioner for encashment of the FD and submitted the FD receipt before the Petitioner for onward submission to Opposite Party No.1/Finance Company. Despite submission of the FD receipt, the Complainants did not receive the amount. On 15/3/2016, the Complainants served a legal notice on the Opposite Parties, but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with the following: -

(3.) Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 stated that since the Complainants had invested money for the purpose of earning profit, they were not Consumers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 stated that they were working as a broker and their role was very limited. They received the application form and money on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.1. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Further, there was no privity of contract between the Complainants and Opposite Party No.2 It was Opposite Party No.1 which was responsible for deficiency in service, if any. Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was liable to be dismissed.