ORDER BELOW Exh. 1
Date - 10.07.2014
(By Shri.Vinayak Raoji Londhe, President)
On perused of the complainant, we are of the view that, complainant is to be heard on the point of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint. Accordingly, we have heard, the learned Advocate Shri.R.Y.Gaikwad at length. The learned counsel has vehemently urged that, the cause of action for failing the complaint lies within the jurisdiction of this Fora. The learned Advocate further submitted that, complainant is resident of Beed therefore, in view of the provisions of section 11 sub ( c ) of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint can be entertained and tried by this Forum.
We have carefully scanned the submission made at bar. We have also gone through the contention in the complaint on bear perusal of the complaint. Complainant has stated that, he had booked the Govt Rest House at Ahmadnagar by receipt no.14324 Dt.15.03.2014. Accordingly, the complainant had gone at Rest House. However, he was not provided the accommodation in that rest house. The complainant was constrained to stay in a private Hotel and was required to spend more money pm carefully going through the complaint of the complainant. We find that, the rest house is situated at Ahmadnagar. The booking for the said rest house was done and ahmadnagar. The refusal to render service accommodate at Ahmadnagar. The certainly cause of action arising at Ahmadnagar. Both the respondent are residing of Ahmadnagar and therefore, by using the power U/sec.12 (sub Clause 3) of Consumer Protection Act. We feel that, complaint is liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
Hence, complaint stands rejected.
Shri.Ravindra Rathodkar Smt.Manjusha Chitalange Shri.Vinayak Londhe
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Beed.
