Order No.06     20.12.2019

          The case is taken up for order in respect of application dated 14.11.2019 filed by the OP. The matter was heard on 19.12.2019.

The Ld. Advocate for  the OP has submitted that instant complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts as the complainant is not a consumer U/s 2 (d) (i) of the CP Act, 1986. He further submitted that the complainant did not implicate the manufacturer of the subject laptop as well as its service centre as parties to the complaint. The complainant purchased the subject laptop on 08.10.2018 from the OP and the warranty of said laptop was also undertaken by the manufacturer i.e. accer INC as per registered warranty annexed in the complaint petition. The OP only sold the subject laptop to the complainant and is not the service provider in terms of the warranty as alleged by the complainant. The dealer of the subject laptop has never promised to provide any service to the complainant. The OP is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of Bowbazar P.S. If the complainant has any grievance, he may lodge consumer complaint before the competent Forum having its territorial jurisdiction.

          On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant strongly opposes the prayer of the OP and submitted that the seller is not liable to repair the subject laptop as it was purchased from them. The liabilities are on the part of the manufacturer and its service centre. He has further submitted that the OP is carrying on business within Taltala P.S. which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

We have heard the submission of both sides. Perused the impugned Miscellaneous Application coupled with petition of the complaint along with annexure thereto. It is true that the complainant purchased the subject laptop from OP and its manufacturer i.e. accer and service centre have not been implicated in the instant case as parties. If the laptop is not working condition in that event the manufacturer and service centre are liable to replace or repair the same but in any case the seller is not responsible for any defect. Being the authorized dealer they only sold the subject laptop to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, the OP is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of Bowbazar P.S. which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on the ground of maintainability and also lack of territorial jurisdiction. No cost is imposed upon any of the parties.

Complainant may approach his grievance before the competent Forum having its territorial jurisdiction, if so desire.

Thus MA being No. 609/2019 is disposed of.