Consumer jurisdiction over share transactions and prompt bona fide delay condonation upheld with territorial jurisdiction at Hissar.

A prompt and bona fide attempt to pursue setting aside of an ex parte order justified condonation of delay, allowing the matter to be heard on merits. Disputes concerning purchase and sale of shares, along with refund of invested money, were treated as capable of falling within consumer jurisdiction where services were rendered for consideration. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the transactions and payment of money occurred at Hissar, and the availability of other forums did not exclude that forum's jurisdiction. The consumer complaints remained maintainable, and the District Forum's orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal/revision should be condoned. (ii) Whether a dispute relating to purchase and sale of shares and refund of money invested therein falls within consumer jurisdiction and whether the District Forum at Hissar had territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal/revision should be condoned.

Analysis: The appellant approached the District Forum promptly after receiving knowledge of the ex parte order and pursued the remedy of setting aside that order within a short time. The period spent in pursuing that course was treated as a bona fide attempt to secure relief. In the circumstances, the matter was considered fit for decision on merits rather than being rejected on limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether a dispute relating to purchase and sale of shares and refund of money invested therein falls within consumer jurisdiction and whether the District Forum at Hissar had territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Claims arising from services rendered in relation to share transactions and the refund of invested amounts were treated as matters falling within consumer jurisdiction. The dispute could not be excluded merely by characterising it as a commercial transaction. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the transactions and payment of money were shown to have occurred at Hissar, and the availability of other possible forums did not oust that jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable under consumer law and the District Forum at Hissar had territorial jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the ex parte consumer orders failed, and the complaints as allowed by the District Forum were left undisturbed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide and prompt pursuit of an alternative remedy may justify condonation of delay, and disputes relating to share transactions and refund of invested money can fall within consumer jurisdiction if the services were rendered for consideration and the cause of action arose within the forum's territorial limits.

---