By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he is having some share of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., which is represented by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 declared the “right issue” of 100 shares with the complainant. The same was intimated by opposite party No.1 to the complainant at their residence at Naduvattom in Kozhikode taluk and an application form has also sent along with it to be filled up and send for the purpose of the issue of additional shares. A DD for Rs.45,000/- was taken from ICICI Bank and submitted to the 3rd opposite party on 7.12.2007. The complainant has not obtained any information regarding the said application and issue of shares as promised by opposite party No.1. Due to the lack of information, claimant sent several letters to the opposite party and no reply received from the opposite party. On 20.5.2008 complainant caused to sent a lawyer notice. Even though the same is acknowledged no reply was received. The above said DD for Rs.45,000/- was taken from Bangalore Branch of ICICI Bank. The complainant alleges that 1st opposite party must have appropriated the said amount. Opposite parties 2nd and 3rd are responsible for recalling the application to the opposite party No.1. All the opposite parties are answerable to the complainant who is a customer, to whom they have promised to do services. The services rendered by opposite parties are not satisfactory and he has not received any information, no amount is returned also. Opposite parties are responsible to compensate the complainant. Therefore the complainant limits her claim to a sum of Rs.75,000/-.<br /> <br /> As a preliminary issue, this Forum has to answer the maintainability of complaint. As per section 11 (2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, complaint shall be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides or cause of action wholly or partly arise. In the present case, all the opposite parties are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, complainant failed to produce documentary proof regarding the cause of action wholly or in part arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum has to reject the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Court this the 6th day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />