Evidence on affidavited has been filed by the complainant Animesh Roy in support of contents of his miscellaneous petition dated 15/12/22for restoration of C. case no 15/21 to it’s original file from perusal of c. case no . 15/21 it transpries that the said case has been dismissed for default on 12/10/22 at the admission stage itself due to long absence of complainant. The case was running for admission which was numbered as c. case no – 15/21. from perusal of complaint case no. – 15/21 and affidavited filed in Misc case no. – 03/22 it transpries that complainant is the resident of sariakella  – kharsawan District , Jharkhand. From perusal of address of opposite party it  transpries that opposite party is carring on his business at Bengaluru, Karnataka. The cause of action of this case arose at sariakella – kharsawan district. when Men’s wrist watch was delivered to the complainant by flipkart on the basis of online purchase on 04/06/21. So, this case is not tenable by this commission under section 34 of the consumer protection Act, 2019 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as because the complainant  is the native of Adityapur, district – Sariakella – Kharsawan and opposite is carring on his business at Bengluru, Karnataka. 

           However complainant is at liberty to file this case before the appropriate commission in whose jurisdriction. complainant is residing and where the cause of action arose. So, fas as the question of limitation is concerned the appropriate commission will consider the time period of pendency of c. case no – 15/21 under section 14 of the limitation Act including the filing of this Misc. case no - 03/22 at hand and entertain the case of complainant excluding the period of pendency before this commission under the limitation Act.

               Thus in result this Misc case is dismissed in the light of above observation and no order for restoration of c. case no – 15/21 could be passed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.