Date of Filing: 16.09.2021 Date of Disposal: 24.08.2022
Order No. 13 Date: 24.08.2022
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. case being No. 35/2021.
No hazira has been filed by the parties.
M.A. case is taken-up for passing order.
On 16.09.2021, the OPs have filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for passing an order to dismiss the case in limine with exemplary cost.
The OP submitted that according to Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no specific averment has been made in the complaint to establish that the jurisdiction lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. They further submitted that purported claim carried by the complainant in the said complaint is also found on un-registered agreement alleged to have been executed by only the complainant No.2 and not the complainant No.1 and the complainant No.1 has got no locus standi to lodge the complaint in the absence of specific averment either in the body of the complaint or in the affidavit of the complainant and no letter of authority or Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of the complainant No.1. Furthermore, he again submitted that no money towards advance payment was received from the complainant No.1 and only a sum of Rs.300/- was received from the complainant No.1 towards application kit and it is needless to mention that application kit can be purchased by anyone and mere purchasing of application kit does not make anyone intending purchaser.
The complainant, though did not file any Written Objection against the M.A. Case being No. 35/2021, yet when the copy of the same was received, it was objected to. During hearing of the M.A. Case, Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued that agreement was made in between the complainant No.2 and the OPs and money transactions was made in between the complainant No.2 and the OPs, Xerox copy of the money receipt supported it. OPs also received Rs.3,000/- from the complainant No.1 who is the mother of the complainant No.2 in relation and the Ld. Advocate for the complainant prayed for rejection of the M.A. case, as there is every jurisdiction of this Commission either territorial or pecuniary.
On perusal of the complaint, the petition, the written version and the Xerox copies of the documents, it is found that there was an agreement in between the complainant No.2 and the OPs for purchasing the flat and he made payment of amount of Rs.3,98,800/- + Rs.12,323/- as it appears from the money receipt submitted by the complainant No.2 and the complainant No.1 paid Rs.300/- for purchasing of application kit which is a part and parcel of the agreement and money transaction in between the complainants and the OPs. It is immaterial whether the said agreement is un-registered or not, it clear that there was an agreement in between the complainant No.2 and the OPs.
With regard to territorial jurisdiction, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction u/S 34(2) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainants have fully established that they are residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Accordingly, the submissions of the OPs that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter u/S 34 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be accepted.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that the OPs hopelessly failed to establish their petition registered as M.A. case being No. 35/2021.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the M.A. Case being No. 35/2021 be and the same is hereby rejected on contest but without any cost.
The M.A. Case being No. 35/2021 is thus disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C, Purba Bardhaman
