Commission rules against consumer in share allotment dispute, citing 'goods' definition under Consumer Protection Act 1986

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the lower forum's order, and dismissed the complaint regarding alleged deficiency in service for non-allotment of shares. The Commission held that the complainant's claim did not constitute a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as an application for share allotment did not fall under the Act's definition of 'goods.' The judgment emphasized that until shares are allotted, the applicant cannot be considered a consumer, following the precedent set in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das II.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged deficiency in service regarding non-allotment of shares after payment.
2. Interpretation of consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Applicability of the decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das II to the present case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint where the appellant, the second opposite party, was alleged to have not allotted shares despite receiving a demand draft for the same. The complainant contended that such non-allotment amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The opposite party argued that the actions complained of did not constitute a consumer dispute under the Act and suggested that the complainant should seek redressal in a Civil Forum instead. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had initially ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation for mental agony.

3. The presiding judges, referring to the decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das II, highlighted that an application for allotment of shares does not fall under the definition of 'goods' as per the Act. They emphasized that until shares are allotted, the applicant cannot be considered a consumer. Therefore, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the individual complaints before the lower forum were deemed legally unsustainable.

4. Consequently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the lower forum's order, and dismissed the complaint. The judgment clarified that the complainant could pursue recovery of the paid amount through a Civil Forum if desired, without imposing any costs in the present case.

---