Advocate for the complainant is present. Heard on the question of admissibility of the complaint and perused the record. 

          The brief fact of the case is that on 25/11/2019 the complainant purchased one Kangen SD-501 water treatment / purifier from the OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- and it was installed in the residence of the complainant  bearing flat No.6/D, Pinnacle Apartment, Nilakantha nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar on 30/11/2019. After installation,  it did not function properly and was not able to dispense clean water as expected from such machine.  The complainant made a formal complaint to the OP No.1 who initiated follow up measures by deputing technical staff for repair. They replaced the machine by another one which started dispensing clear drinking water.

          After exchange of e-mails regarding refund of the price, OP.1 apologized and asked the complainant for providing her bank details for refund of the amount.  Due to some delay in refund, the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs on 20/02/2020 demanding  refund of the amount along with interest and compensation within seven days of receiving the notice by alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Thereafter, OP.1 refunded the machine cost of Rs.2,79,000/-  to the complainant but did not pay any interest and compensation as demanded in the legal notice. 

Hence this complaint U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 praying for directing the OPs to pay Rs.5,37,555/- to the complainant  towards  interest, compensation and litigation cost as per the details given in  Para -11 of the complaint petition.  

          But it is astonishing as to how the complainant claimed refund of the price  after admitting replacement of the machine and how  OP.1 gave back the money to the complainant after such replacement was done.

However,  in the instant case, we find that the so called formal complaint made to the OP No.1 immediately after installation of the machine on 30/11/2019 , is not filed before us to  show if at all there has been any delay caused by the OP.1 in attending the call  and what was the exact delay so as to enable us to examine whether it makes out any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  as alleged justifying the claim of interest and compensation even after replacement / refund  within so short span of time after installation. The complaint petition has been prepared on 26/02/2020 and filed in this Forum on 27/02/2020 i.e. before expiry of the seven days period given in the legal notice,  though  OP No.1 has already  refunded the cost of the machine  to the complainant as demanded by her through e-mails in which no interest and compensation has been claimed.  

The most important thing which we find  here is  that  from out of the two opposite parties  to the case, there is absolutely no allegation made against the OP.2  who belongs to USA and also no  postal receipt or any other document is filed in proof of sending the legal notice to him. Moreover, from the cause title of the complaint petition, we find that none of the OPs actually and voluntarily resides within the local limits / territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant claims to have purchased the  goods in question from  OP.1 and as per the description of OP.1 given in the cause title of the complaint petition, he belongs to Bangalore and also the corresponding invoice filed as Annexure -1 reveals to have been issued from Bangalore. There is no specific averment made in the complaint petition to the effect that  OP.1 carries on its business or has  its  branch office at Bhubaneswar. Also there is  absolutely nothing  averred in the complaint petition if the cause of action  for this complaint has arisen wholly or in part  within the  local limits of the district of Khurda.   This hits to the very root of the matter hence cannot be overlooked   and in absence of specific  contention in this regard, in the complaint petition, it is not for us to presume things and surmise one way or the other so as to enclothe  ourself  with  territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   

Accordingly, therefore,  none of the OPs  are pre-requisites as prescribed in Section 11(2) of the C.P.Act, 1986 having been fulfilled in this case,  we are of the view that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence in the interest of justice,   it is hereby ordered that the complaint petition be returned  to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the same and adjudicate the dispute.

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                               

                    Member(w)                       Member                              President