ITEM NO.108                 COURT NO.9               SECTION XVII

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7604 OF 2002

UNIT TRUST OF INDIA                                  Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

SRI SHANKAR DAS                                      Respondent(s)

Date: 28/04/2009  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA

For Appellant(s)    Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi,Adv.

For Respondent(s)    Rr-Ex-Parte,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

The appeal is dismissed,

[ Usha Bhardwaj ]             [ Vijay Dhawan]   Court Master               Court Master

    Signed order is placed on the file.

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                    

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL No.7604 of 2002

Unit Trust of India .....Appellant(s)

    Versus

Sri Shankar Das .....Respondent(s)

                            O R D E R        This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the Unit Trust of  

India questioning the correctness of  order dated 13rd February, 2002 passed by  

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter  

referred to as the "National Commission") in First Appeal No.465 of 1995. By the  

impugned order, while affirming the amount of compensation awarded by the  

State Consumer Commission to the respondent, being the value of 750 Master  

Shares, the National Commission has reduced the rate of interest payable on the  

said amount from 18% per annum to 12% per annum for the period from 1st  

May, 1992 till payment.

Despite  service the respondent  is  not present.   Accordingly,  we have  

heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The sole ground  on which the decision of the State Commission as well  

as of the National Commission is

                           ..2/-

:2:

sought to be challenged is that being a trader in shares, the respondent can not be

treated  as  a  'consumer'  within  the  meaning  of  Section  2(1)(d)  of  Consumer  

Protection  Act,  1986.   To bettress  his  stand learned counsel  for the appellant  

referred to an averment made by the complainant in his complaint, wherein it  

was stated that had the complainant been allotted 750 units of Master Shares,  

apart from getting dividend at the rate of Rs.18 per Share, he would have made  

some profit by selling the same at the rate of 125/- per unit, which was the market  

rate as on 3rd April, 1992.  Thus, the submission of the learned counsel is that the  

respondent wanted to acquire the shares only with a view to sell them for profit  

and therefore, being a commercial transaction, he is out of the purview of the Act.  

The submission is stated  to be rejected.  The word "trade" means an  

activity or occupation carried on continuously and regularly for the purpose of  

profit.  A mere investment in shares for the purpose of earning dividends and for  

that matter earning profit on their sale as a solitary transaction cannot by any  

standard  amount  to  "trading"  in  the  commercial  sense,  as  contemplated  in  

Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

..3/-

:3:

In the instant case the National Commission has noted that no material  

had  been  brought  on  record  to  show  that  the  complainant-respondent  was  

engaged in a regular  business of sale and purchase of shares.  Even before us,  

learned counsel has not been able to show any material which has not been taken  

into consideration by the Commission.  In that view of the matter, we do not find  

any  infirmity  in  the  impugned  order,  holding  the  complainant  to  be  a  

"consumer".  Deficiency in service by the appellant also stood proved on account

of their failure to allot and issue shares to the respondent.

The appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed accordingly.

....................J.         [ D.K. JAIN ]   

                                ....................J.                                                  [ R.M.  

LODHA ]        NEW DELHI,      APRIL 28, 2009.