Delhi State Commission Dismisses Complaint Based On Involvement Of Complex Questions Of Law And Fact, Sets Complainant At Liberty To Approach Civil Court

Brief Facts:

Mr Ajay Garg (“Complainant”) approached M/s Angel Broking Limited (“Broker”) for trading. Based on their representation, the Complainant issued 2 cheques worth Rs. 25,000/- each for a shares trading account. Allegedly, the Broker also got the signature of the Complainant on a blank form, stating a legal requirement for the stock exchange. Subsequently, the Broker showed a profit of Rs. 7,172.21/- to the Complainant. On this basis, the Complainant again issued a cheque of Rs. 20,50,000/-. However, there was only a mere profit margin on this amount. Further, the Complainant was kept in the dark about the investment. He enquired about the said investment and found that the Broker had put the amount in share trading and other trading without the Complainant's consent. The Broker told the Complainant that he was informed via SMS, however, no proof was presented to substantiate this claim. The Broker also convinced the Complainant to keep investing and promised to cover up all previous losses. With continuing deposits, the Complainant lost Rs. 1,03,40,000/- and gained only Rs. 6,96,854.53/- from the transaction. Allegedly, the Broker used the Complainant's amount for its gains. It also opened the Complainant's account in different segments of investments without his consent. When the Complainant got the matter examined by experts, he discovered that the Broker committed serious fraud and serious illegalities.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”). In response, the Broker submitted that the Complainant was not a 'consumer' as he used to trade shares on a large scale which would amount to a purely commercial activity. Further, there existed an arbitration agreement between the Broker and the Complainant. Therefore, the State Commission was not the appropriate authority to adjudicate the dispute.

Observations of the Commission:

The state commission indicated that while the Consumer Forum handles issues in a summary proceeding, cases involving substantial evidence cannot be effectively adjudicated by the Forum. Instead, such cases should be pursued in civil court, where a more elaborate procedure, including the recording of evidence, is followed. The State Commission referenced legal precedents, such as the Punjab Lloyd Ltd. vs. Corporate Risk India Pvt. Ltd. [(2009) 2 SCC 301], to support this stance.

It emphasized that complex questions of law and fact are better suited for resolution in regular courts rather than consumer forums. Consequently, the State Commission determined that the complaint involved complicated questions requiring extensive evidence and witness examination, making it beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act and suitable for adjudication in a civil court. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, with the option for the complainant to pursue the matter in civil court.