A.P. Sahi, President

1. All these four complaints have been instituted by Investors. As to how they proceeded to invest in stocks individually and separately are stated by them separately in their complaints. The recital contained in paragraph 25 in the case of Varsha Madhukar Khanwalkar (Supra) as follows:

                   "25. That, during month of January 2024, the complainant received an advertisement while surfing on mobile phone from BLACK ROCH ANGLE ONE STOCK TRADING and thereafter she was provided some information regarding investment backed by a SEBI registered Broking house and thereafter she was joined to various WhatsApp group and was also provided with some link to join trading activities. All this information is submitted in FIR registered with FIR No. 158 of 2024 dated 14/3/2024 annexed at D. Complainant also downloaded certain app for trading details. This app also provided live NSE feed and stock quotes were presented tick by tick (ON REAL TIME BASIS) and this made the complainant to believe that the business plan is be genuine."

2. The recital contained in the case of Sandeep Nitin Tupkari (Supra) in paragraph 24 as follows:

                   "24) That, during month of February 2024, the complainant no.1 received an advertisement/link while surfing on internet from HI SCHRODERS INSTITUTE VIP regarding profitable investments from share trading. Complainant no.1 used the link and was joined the group. Complainant No.1 observed for few days the tips provided by the admin of the group and subsequent outcomes of those tips and thereafter decided to join the trading CTIVITY. All the relevant information is submitted in FIR registered with FIR No. 205 of 2024 dated 26/3/2024 annexed at D."

3. The recitals contained in the case of Sanjiv Chandrakumar Mehra (Supra) in paragraph 24 and 25 as follows:

                   "24) That, on 16 May 2025, the complainant received message regarding good returns in share investment and was provided with one link to join WhatsApp group and also to open one trading account. The complainant no.1 was added in WhatsApp Group of Investors and group admin started Providing tips and information about investment tips as well as of the upcoming IPOs.

                   25) That complainant invested in various tips provided by admin by depositing money in various bank accounts provided by admin and this account www.sbisecucst.com was showing considerable gains. This website also provided live NSE feed and stock quotes were presented tick by tick (ON REAL TIME BASIS) and this made the complainant to believe that the investment is be genuine."

4. The recitals contained in the case of Chirag Jayantbhai Shah (Supra) in paragraph 24 to 26 is as follows:

                   "24) That, during month of January 2024, the complainant was Approached by Dia Verma of Pantheon Ventures (UK) explaining their intention to start Pantheon Ventures India operations and while they were setting up the offices in India they were already engaged in Indian Equity Markets as an Asset Management Company (as a Foreign Institutional Investor) and as an FII they have much more privileges compared to a normal retail investors and can work very well to investor's benefits in the IPO applications and Block Deals.

                   With a very high % Returns in the Tune of 10 to 25% on every transaction and up to 100% or more in every IPO application.

                   25) That they Added complainant in their WhatsApp Group of Investors and started Providing tips and information of the upcoming IPOs and their operations and gave complainant a link to their Asset Management Account through their Portal which was only accessible to the members where participants can add / remove funds and apply for IPOs and do regular transactions

                   26) That complainant applied for Different IPOs, 1.Medi Assist Lawsikho, 4.BLS E Ltd, 2. Maxposure Ltd, 3. Services etc. This app also provided live NSE feed and stock quotes were presented tick by tick (ON REAL TIME BASIS) and this made the complainant to believe that the investment is be genuine."

5. A perusal of the these paragraphs leaves not room for doubt, along with all the allegations made in the complaint, that all the complainants invested in stocks through some broking house which they allege they came to know through some whatsapp linking groups and after downloading certain app for trading details. They invested in a financial trade. A perusal thereof clearly indicates that it was only to generate profits that such huge investments were explored and made.

6. Then there are certain more peculiar averments made giving rise to the alleged cause of action where it is alleged that during a very short period of few days they witnessed turnovers exceeding their threshold limits multiple times and inconsistent with normal transactions. Paragraph 28 in the case of Varsha Khanwalkar (Supra) is extracted herein under:

                   "28) That during this period of 15 days, complainant's total transactions amounted to Rs.7 Crore and exceeding threshold limit as well as inconsistent with the normal transactions pattern of the complainant. On 13 February 2024, the complainants account witnessed single day turnover of Rs.1,50,00,000/= which was unusual and exceeding threshold limit of the account. Again, on 21 February 2024 the total transactions in this account were Rs.1,04,00,000/= Similarly on 22 February 2024 turnover of Rs.1,03,000 occurred in this account, which was totally inconsistent and highly exceeding threshold frequency/limit complainants account held by R-1 AXIS Bank. In month of February 2024 the account witnessed total turnover of @ Rs.7 crores and this was not normal transaction pattern of the complainant."

7. A similar averment has been made in paragraph 26 in the case of Sandeep Nitin Tupkari (Supra), which is extracted herein under:

                   "26) That during this period of 25 days, the complainant's all accounts transactions exceeded threshold limit as well as were inconsistent with the normal transactions pattern of the complainants. The account no.50100619963152, suddenly on 4 March 2024 witnessed single day transactions amounting to Rs.95,00,000/- The account no. 50100624375582 witnessed transactions of Rs.43,81,991 on 28/2/2024, Rs.44,41,000 on 29/2/2024, Rs.1,01,75,000 on 4/3/2024. And Rs.90,00,000/- on 13/3/2024. Similarly account no. 00441610088804 witnessed transactions of Rs.27,88,345 on 22/2/2024, Rs.29,85,000 on 29/2/2024, Rs.1,04,00,000 on 4/3/2024, Rs.7,00,000 on 11/3/2024, Rs.1,80,35,001 on 13/3/2024, Rs.24,00,000 on 15/3/2024 and Rs.1,76,00,000 on 18/3/2024. The complainants accounts witnessed such huge turnover which were unusual All this pattern of transactions in this duration was not normal transaction pattern of the complainant."

8. This is again recited in paragraph 27 in the case of Sanjiv Chandrakumar Mehra (Supra), which is extracted herein under:

                   "27) That during this period of 50 days, complainants account witnessed turnover exceeding threshold limit many times as well as inconsistent with the normal transactions pattern of the complainants. This account witnessed transactions of Rs.1,00,000 on 20/5/25 and Rs. 1,75,000 21/5/2025, on 22/05/2025 the total transactions of Rs.1,50,000, on 23/05/2025 transactions of 5,75,000, on 27/05/2025 transactions of Rs.10,00,000, on 28/05/2025 transactions of Rs.8,00,000, on 29/05/2025 transactions Rs.13,00,000, on 02/06/2025 transactions of Rs.15,00,000 on 03/06/2025 transaction of Rs.5,00,000 on 20/06/2025 transactions of Rs.15,00,000 on 21/06/2025 transactions of Rs.33,00,000 on 01/07/2025 transactions of Rs.50,00,000 on 04/07/2025 transactions of Rs.10,00,000 on 05/07/2025 transactions of Rs1,00,00,000 on 07/07/2025 transactions of Rs.10,00,000 and lastly on 08/07/2025 transactions of Rs.10,00,000 were witnessed. All these transactions between this duration were totally inconsistent and highly exceeding threshold frequency/limit of the complainants account held by R-1 IDBI Bank."

9. Once again in the case of Chirag Jayantbhai Shah (Supra), paragraph 28 of the complaint states as under:

                   "28) That during this period of 30 days, complainants account witnessed turnover of Rs.620 lakhs and these transactions were exceeding threshold limit many times as well as inconsistent with the normal transactions pattern of the complainant. Also on 29 January 2024, the complainants account witnessed credit/debit of Rs.3 Crores and this single day turnover of Rs.3 Crore was extremely unusual and exceeding threshold limit of the account.

                   This account witnessed transactions of R.10,00,000 on 10/1/24 and 11/1/2024, on 16 January 2024 the total transactions of Rs.5,00,000, on 17 January 2024 transactions of 5,62,000, on 18 January 2024 transactions of Rs.42,10,000, on 19 January 2024 transactions of Rs.30,50,000, on 30 January 2024 transactions of Rs.56,07,000, on 7 February 2024 transactions of Rs.15,00,000 and lastly on 8February 2024 transaction of Rs.96,20,000 were witnessed. All these transactions between this duration were totally inconsistent and highly exceeding threshold frequency/limit of the complainants account held by R-1 ICICI Bank."

10. All the complainants have made an allegation that there has been a deficiency of service by the opposite party - Banks in not having taken care to abide by reasonable security practices required to be maintained and therefore the complaint deserves to be entertained for the reliefs prayed for on the ground that the Banks were deficient in their services by not adhering to the checks and balances provided by the RBI circulars.

11. We have perused the averments made in all the four complaints and it is more than evident that all the complainants seem to be trading and making speculative investments for generating profits. It is also evident from the nature of the transactions which are not only doubtful and have resulted in criminal complaints, but also involve highly complex questions relating to such transactions which are obviously for commercial purposes. The Apex Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2022) 5 SCC 42 has dealt with the nature of such transactions, and in the instant case also, we find that the transactions clearly and predominantly involve trading in stocks and investments in the financial market for gaining profits. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri (Supra) therefore applies on the facts of the present case as well. The complainants are therefore into commercial transactions for business gains and therefore this complaint does not fall within the purview of a consumer complaint.

12. Apart from this questions of fact pertaining to the nature of the transactions and the criminal investigations involved also clearly preclude the summary jurisdiction of this Commission from entertaining such complaints which cannot be termed as consumer complaints. The ratio of the decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Limited & Ors. Vs. R. Chandramohan, (2023) 7 SCC 775, is clearly attracted in view of the peculiar facts of all these complaints.

13. The nature of the complaints therefore clearly are which do not fall within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. All the complaints are accordingly rejected as neither entertainable nor maintainable without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievances.