Share allotment disputes may fall outside consumer jurisdiction where no service for consideration is hired, making the complaint non-maintainable.

A dispute over non-allotment of shares was treated as outside consumer jurisdiction because the application for shares did not involve hiring of services for consideration. On that basis, the complaint was not maintainable as a consumer dispute and did not disclose deficiency in service. Orders passed ex parte by the District Forum in such a non-maintainable proceeding were therefore unsustainable and void. The revisional forum further noted that the State Commission should have corrected the jurisdictional defect even though delay had been raised. The complaint petitions were dismissed and the prior orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint relating to non-allotment of shares disclosed a consumer dispute or deficiency in service, and whether the ex parte orders of the District Forum and the dismissal of the appeals by the State Commission could be sustained.

Analysis: The grievance arose from an application for allotment of shares and did not involve any hiring of services for consideration between the complainant and the company. On that footing, the matter did not amount to a consumer dispute and the complaint itself was not maintainable. Since the District Forum's ex parte orders were passed in a matter outside consumer jurisdiction, those orders were treated as void. The State Commission ought to have interfered notwithstanding the delay aspect once the jurisdictional defect became apparent.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable, the ex parte orders were unsustainable, and the revision petitioners succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was exercised to set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum, with the complaint petitions standing dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute over allotment of shares, without hiring of services for consideration, does not constitute a consumer dispute or deficiency in service, and orders passed in such a non-maintainable consumer proceeding are liable to be set aside.

---