Date of filing :4.8.2017

Judgment : Dt.26.4.2018

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member

            This is a complaint made by SriDebajyoti Banerjee S/o Late Debidas Banerjee, 1/9, Ajoynagar Santoshpur, P.S.-Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075 against Great Eastern Techno City, 15-B, Sarat Bose Road, P.S.-Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700 020 (OP) praying for directions upon the OP to pay a Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony, professional loss and etc. and to replace or repair the defective P.C. by same model new P.C. and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- being cost of travelling and meeting in respect of the above mentioned disputes against OP.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased one laptop (I.T.) description HP15-AY085TU S.L.No. CND64066QSZ WSL for Rs.23,250/- from OP on 30.1.2017. As per the Complainant, laptop started having problem from July 2017 since there was no original operating system provided and pirated version was provided and is not working in his P.C.

            The Complainant was assured at the time of purchase by the Salesmen that he will be given one Mouse (LAPCARE OPTICAL MOUSE S.L.NO.WSL) pricing Rs.150/- as free of cost but was not given due to out of stock for which the Complainant was given a bill with enclosing “Due” but till date it was not delivered to him. In July, 2017, the  L.C.D. screen of the Laptop was not properly functioning as a leakage was found in one corner of the laptop screen and a shadow was coming on the screen and 80% of the screen was not visible and Complainant faced problem to use it. The Complainant telephoned to the OP for immediate repair as he was assured at the time of purchase that fault will be repaired within 24 hrs. Thereafter, the Complainant docketed the case vide No.5001840377 with the Customer Care of H.P.No.1800112267 but no positive response was received.

            The Complainant stated that the cause of action arose on 31.7.2017 from his house at Purba Jadavpur P.S. under the jurisdiction of this Forum.

            The Complainant has been passing serious mental depression for the conduct of the OP and not being able to do his professional work and thus Complainant filed this case.

            Notices were served upon OP.

            OP contested this case by filing written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition and stated that the complaint is lack of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. The OP admitted in his written version that the laptop was purchased by Complainant for Rs.23,250/- on 30.1.2017 and delivered to him after full satisfaction and demonstration. The OP communicated to the manufacturer for this defect and a mechanic was sent for repair but Complainant did not make the manufacturer party in this case.

            The OP stated that they being a dealer not liable and responsible for any manufacturing defects and so prayed for dismissal of this case.

            The Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire against which OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            The Complainant has filed BNA and OP has filed certain judgments.

            Main points for determinations

1. Whether the case is maintainable before this Forum ?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of unfair trade practice upon OPs?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

      Point No.(i)

            The Complainant has stated that he has purchased one laptop from the OP at agreed consideration of Rs.23,250/-. The Complainant has alleged that the OP did not provide him proper service regarding removing the defects developed in the said laptop subsequently.

            On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the OP carries business within the local units of Bhowanipore Police Station which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Section 11(2) of the C. P. Act, 1986

 A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
2. any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided 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.

            Under such circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum owing to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

            Point (i) is answered accordingly.

            Since the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum, there is no scope to enter into the merit of the case and to decide the point No.(ii) & (iii).

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/461/2017 is dismissed being not maintainable.

            The Complainant is at liberty to file the case afresh before appropriate Forum on same cause of action.