The complainant Phani Bhuson Biswas has filed an application u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a retired person aged about 75 years and he is a permanent resident of Rainbow Residency, P.S. Raiganj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. As per advertisement in the Ananda Bazar Patrika dt.11.06.2016 he intended to purchase a flat and as such he paid Rs.5,00,000/- as advance by two cheques, one for Rs.1,50,000 and another for Rs.3,50,000/- being No.935735 of S.B.I Balurghat Branch to the O.P on 28.08.2016 according to the agreement dt.28.08.2016 out of sale value of Rs.12,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- only will be paid on or before the date of registration of the final deed within December 2017 from the date of agreement along with a condition that the O.P would hand over the flat within December, 2017 to the complainant. The O.P has failed to hand over the said flat mentioned in the schedule of the complaint to the complainant till date of filing of the case as the O.P has not constructed the said flat and at present the O.P has refused to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, the O.P is totally irresponsible and committed fraud trade practice. The complainant met to the O.P and requested repeatedly to refund the said advance amount on 08.01.2018, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to his request. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fare Business Practice, Uttar Dinajpur Regional Office at Raiganj against the O.P after expiry of the stipulated period of giving of the said flat. On 11.04.18 the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fare Business Practice, Uttar Dinajpur Regional Office at Raiganj sent a letter to Biplab Mondal, Proprietor of Dishari Construction (Devoloper), Nimta, Kolkata-49 who did not give any reply and again on 10.05.2018 he also sent a letter to him, but he did not give any reply till date. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps and as it was deficiency in service on his part. The cause of action arose on 08.11.18.

Upon this back ground the complainant prayed to direct the O.P to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and to give compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental stress , agony and harassment.

Inspite of having service of notice the O.P did not appear to contest the case. Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte.

In order to prove the case the complainant filed Xerox copy of listed documents. He also adduced oral evidence as P.W.1.

Perused the evidence of P.W.1, complaint, and the Xerox copy of the documents so filed by the complainant. It appears from the oral evidence that he has paid advance of Rs.5,00,000/- to the O.P for purchasing the scheduled flat out of sale value of the flat Rs.12,50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- would be paid on or before the date of registration of the said flat within December, 2017 from the date of agreement. From the Xerox copy of agreement it appears that the agreement has been made in between the complainant and the O.P on 28.08.2016 in Kolkata but from the Xerox copy of the pass book of account No.11273627982 in the name of the complainant and his wife Sikha Biswas lying under the S.B.I, Balurghat Branch appears that Rs.1,40,000/- has been withdrawn by cheque No.00093573 dt.25.05.2016 and Rs.3,50,000/- was withdrawn by cheque No.000935735 on 29.08.2016. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in the complaint has not been tallied with withdrawal money of Rs.1,40,000/- shown in his pass book. It is clear from his so adduced evidence that he paid Rs.4,90,000/- as advance money to the O.P for purchasing the flat in question.

Now, we shall have to look into the evidence of the complainant as to whether this Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to try this case. From cause title of the complaint it is clear that both the O.Ps is in the address of Kolkata. According to Sec.11 of C.P.Act 1986 this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction in this case but we have to see whether the complainant has been able to prove that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As regards the territorial jurisdiction the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain consumer disputes, the cause of action of which has wholly or partly arisen within the territorial limits of the District Forum and the O.Ps or each of the O.P, whether there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and fully residence or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain and that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution. The complainant has failed to prove such ingredients of Sec.11 of the C.P.Act 1986. According to settled principle of law the Forum should have some nexus on actual cause of action within the location of the office of that office. The jurisdiction cannot be decided merely because the complainant is/was a resident of the place within the jurisdiction of the Fora. Residence of the complainant has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Forum. As per Xerox copy so filed by the complainant of account No.11273627982 lying under the S.B.I, Balurghat Branch within the district of Dakshin Dinajpur, the money transaction for giving advance to the O.P is made not within the place of the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is evident on record that the agreement has been made in Kolkata. The flat which would be sale or purchase is within the Kolkata and the money transaction which is partly cause of action of this case has been made at Balurghat Branch of S.B.I within the district of Dakshin Dinajpur. Therefore, it can be said that the cause of action wholly or partly has not been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

 Under the above foregoing facts and circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case and the case is not maintainable within this Consumer Forum. The complainant fails to prove his case.

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That this complaint case being no. CC-47/18 be and the same is dismissed ex parte but without cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.