Order  No.  02                                   Dated -13.05.2022

            Today is fixed for Admission hearing.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. The investor filed the instant complaint case against Humara India Co-operative Society Ltd. and others on the allegation of deficiency in service in the dispute to nonpayment of maturity amount of investment.

            On perusal of the cause title of the consumer complaint, it appears to us that the OP 2 and 3 are carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant invited our attention to the Section 34(2) of the CP Act, 2019. Section 34(2) of the Act reads as under :

2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

a) the OP or each of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

b) any of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

            Complainant filed an application on 29.042022 U/s 34(2)(b) of the CP Act, 2019.

            In our opinion, that will not help the case of the complainant as the certificate was issued by OP 2 having its branch office situated at New Market near Malancha Cinema, Barakar within the district of Paschim Bardhaman. If the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant is accepted, it will mean that even a cause of action has arisen in Paschim Bardhaman, then too the complainant can file claim petition in Barasat or Alipore or anywhere in West Bengal where a branch office of Humara India Co-operative Society Ltd. is situated. We cannot agree with this contention, it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office in section 34(2) or CP Act, 2019 would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of section 34(2)(b) of the said Act.

             In the present case since the cause of action arose at Paschim Bardhaman, the DCDRC, Paschim Bardhaman alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

            For the reason stated herein above, we are not inclined to allow the prayer of the complainant U/s 34(2)(b) of the CP Act, 2019. Thus, MA being No. 233/2022 is rejected and disposed of.

            The complaint is not admitted and dismissed in limine.

            Liberty be given to the complainant to approach his grievance before the competent commission, if so desired.