1997 (10) TMI 318 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against an ex parte order.
2. Jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum in consumer disputes related to share transactions.
3. Applicability of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in commercial transactions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeals against an ex parte order
The appellant filed appeals against an ex parte order dated 8-2-1994, seeking condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the time spent in pursuing an application to set aside the ex parte order should be excluded from the limitation period. The appellant relied on a case law stating that if an order is illegal or void, the limitation period does not apply. The respondent opposed the delay condonation, arguing proper service was made, and the appeals should have been filed within 30 days before the State Commission. The Commission held that the delay should be condoned as the appeal was filed within 30 days of the appellant's knowledge of the order, and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum in share transactions
The complainants approached the District Consumer Forum claiming compensation for share transactions with the appellant, a Broker and Commission Agent. The appellant did not appear, leading to ex parte proceedings where complaints were accepted, awarding compensation. The appellant contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction as the dispute was a commercial transaction and not covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Commission ruled that claims related to share transactions and compensation fall under consumer jurisdiction, rejecting the appellant's argument on lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.

Issue 3: Applicability of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in commercial transactions
The appellant argued that the dispute was a commercial transaction and not covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. However, the Commission held that claims regarding share transactions and compensation are within the consumer jurisdiction, and relief can be granted by Consumer Forums and State Commissions. The Commission emphasized that lack of territorial jurisdiction was not a valid argument, as long as the transactions occurred within the Forum's jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Commission upheld the District Consumer Forum's decision, finding no legal infirmity. The respondents were awarded costs for being unnecessarily dragged into litigation.