JAIMALA AND ORS. Vs. RELIANCE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT A DIVISION OF RELIANCE CAPITAL ASSET. MANAGEMENT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of single order of learned State Commission involving similar facts and law; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 20.8.2013 passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. CC/10/28 Jaimala Vs. M/s. Reliance Portfolio Management & CC/10/29 - Subramaniam Iyer Vs. M/s. Reliance Portfolio Management by which, complaints were dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that each Complainant/appellant handed over cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs to OP/respondent under Portfolio Management Services (PMS) for investment purpose under agreement executed between the parties and complainants opted for discretionary Portfolio Management. OP did not extend services as assured and promised on account of which, complainants investment was reduced to Rs.29,02,580/- in complainant Subramaniam Iyer Account and Rs.26,89,347.35 in complainant Jaimala Account on 30.7.2010. It was further submitted that as per guidelines of SEBI, it was incumbent upon OP to open separate Bank Account and demat Account of the Complainants by 11.2.2009. OP's representative collected all documents for opening account, but account was opened on 29.10.2009 with inordinate delay of 9 months which caused loss to the investment made by complainants. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed separate complaints before State Commission. OP resisted complaints and submitted that the complainants invested their money with the opponent for the purpose of earning profit which was of commercial nature and hence the complainants were not the consumers as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it was submitted that the complainants executed Discretionary (Portfolio Management Service) agreement where the risks and loss involved was already clearly explained at the time of investment and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaints against which, these appeals have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.