SANJEEV JAIN Vs. RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order dated 30.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No.246 of 2000.

(2.) The dispute raised in the complaint case as also in this appeal is about Triple Option Convertible Debentures (for short hereinafter referred to as TOCDs), the details of which have been mentioned in the impugned order in Para 1. These TOCDs of the respondent-Company had some defect inasmuch as the some amount was outstanding against these TOCDs regarding the allotment money as well as other call monies. These TOCDs were alleged to have been purchased by the appellant from the registered holders against whom the said liability was pending. The respondents were approached by the appellant for the transfer and registration of TOCDs in his name but the respondents instead of transferring the same forfeited the TOCDs and TOCDs certificates were cancelled, which has been alleged to be deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(3.) The District Forum held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint as the offices of both the respondents were situated beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and there was no branch office of the respondents located within the territorial limits of the Forum. The other ground on which the District Forum did not accept the appellants version is that the appellant was not a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act ). The appellant did not place on record any evidence regarding their hiring and availing of services of the respondents Company. Apart from this, the question of a clear title in the TOCDs aforesaid was also involved.