jhMj izdj.k iath esa ntZ dj dzekafdr djsaA
ekeys esa izkjafHkd rdZ lquk tk pqdk gSA ifjokn dks fo”ks’kr% LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds fcUnq ij lquk x;k gSA izLrqr ifjokn xq.koRrk foghu Vk;j V~;wc fodz; fd;s tkus ds dkj.k gqbZ {kfr ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA fookfnr Vk;j V~;wc vukosnd dzekad&01 ls okgu ds lkFk yxk gqvk dz; fd;k x;k FkkA vukosnd dzekad&01 tgka ls mDr Vk;j V~;wc okgu ds lkFk yxk gqvk dz; fd;k x;k Fkk dk LFkku xzke vatksjk] rglhy o ftyk nqxZ gksdj bl Qksje ds LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr ugha gSA ftl vukosnd dzekad&02 daiuh dk mDr fookfnr Vk;j V~;wc gksuk dgk x;k gS mldk LFkku Hkh VkVhca/k jk;iqj gksdj bl ftyk Qksje ds LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr ugha gSA vfHkdfFkr ?kVuk tgka mDr Vk;j QV dj {kfrxzLr gqvk og ;oreky ¼egkjk’Vª½ dh gSA blls ;g Li’V gS fd okndkj.k Hkh bl Qksje ds LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr izkIr ugha gqvk gSA ifjoknh us vius vfHkopu dh dafMdk 14 esa mDr fcUnq ij ;g dgk gS pwafd ifjoknh okMZ uacj 3 fp[kyh] rglhy o ftyk jktukanxkao dk LFkk;h fuoklh gS blfy, ;g ifjokn bl Qksje ds LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr gSA ifjoknh ds mDr vfHkopu ls ,slk nf”kZr gksrk gS fd og ifjoknh ds fuokl LFkku ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr ifjokn dks bl Qksje ds LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr gksuk dg jgk gSA ge ifjoknh ds mDr dFku ls lger ugha gS miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 11 ifjoknh ds fuokl LFkku ij ftyk Qksje dks LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj iznku ugha djrh gSA ifjoknh us mDr fcUnq ij The Headway Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Versus Chandra Mohan Agarwal & Ors. Revision Nos. 122, 123 & 124 of 1995-Decided on 3.9.1996
Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commsission, Jaipur ds ftl U;k;n`‘Vkar ij Hkjkslk fd;k gS mlds rF; bl ekeys ls fHkUu gS rFkk mlesa izfrikfnr fl)kar bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSA lanfHkZr U;k; n`‘Vkar tek jkf’k ij C;kt fn;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gS ftlds laca/k esa mDr jkT; vk;ksx us ;g dgk gS fd& “It is clear that the amounts under the certificate had matured and became payable to the complainants When a deposit matures, the Company becomes a debtor and on the basis of the principle that the debtor should seek the creditor, the amount was payable at Dholpur where the complainants resided. Dholpur District Forum had, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. “
fdUrq ;g ekeyk fdlh fMikftV jkf”k ;k mlds C;kt ls lacaf/kr ugha gS vkSj uk gh bl ekeys esa ifjoknh ,oa vukosndx.kksa ds e/; debtor vkSj creditor tSls laca/k gS vfirq ;g ekeyk =qfViw.kZ oLrq iznku fd;s tkus ds dkj.k mlls mRiUu gqbZ {kfr ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ jkf”k fnyk;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gSA ge mDr U;k; n‘Vkar dks bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksuk ikrs gSA
mDr laca/k esa Ashis kumar pal Vs. Frontier Trading Transmission & Ors. Revision petition Nos. 1236-1237 of 2011 in Appeal Nos. 2356 of 2007 and 429 of 2008. Decided On 12.08.2011 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. ds U;k; n‘Vkar vuqlj.kh; gS ftldh dafMdk 7 bl izdkj gS&
In the instant case, the opposite party company has no Branch office at Betul, and none of the opposite part resides at Betul. Nor did the cause of action arise, either wholly or in part, at Betul. The money order was given at the showroom at Nagpur and was payable at Nagpur. The receipt filed by the complainant clearly states “Delivery At Nagpur”. The entire transaction took place at Nagpur. In such circumstances, the District Forum, Betul, had no jurisdiction to decide the case. Merely because the complainant resided in Betul, it would not confer jurisdiction on the Betul Forum.
mDr foospu ls ge bl fuf”pr er ds gS fd bl ekeys esa ifjoknh ds fuokl LFkku ds vk/kkj ij bl Qksje dks LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksxkA ge bl er ds Hkh gS fd bl ekeys esa bl Qksje dks LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSa] vLrq ;g ekeyk LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko esa fcuk xq.k&nks’k ds fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA bl ekeys esa ifjoknh us tks vly nLrkostsa izLrqr dh gS mldh ifjoknh }kjk lR;kfir izfr vfHkys[k esa j[k mDr nLrkostsa ifjoknh dks okil fd;k tkosA bl vkns”k dh izfr fu%”kqYd ifjoknh dks iznku fd;k tkosA
vfHkys[k O;ofLFkr dj vfHkys[kkxkj esa nkf[ky gksA
