J U D G E M E N T

              Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the complainant’s case may be summarized thus :-

             In summarizing the case stated in the complaint, is that, being the medical practitioner and Owner of a Nurshing Home named ‘Sasthya Nivas Nurshing Home’, the Complainant had purchased a software namely ‘Trans care version 16-0-1’ after giving demonstration and convincing about the utility and facilities of the said software for cost of Rs. 40,000/- only which was entirely paid by the Complainant by cheque (Rs. 36,000/- only) on 25.05.2013 and by cash (Rs. 4,000/- only) on 29.05.2013 and the Opposite Party had installed the said software on 25.05.2013 to the aforesaid Nurshing Home of the Complainant.

              After installation of the said software namely ‘Trans care version 16-0-1’ the Opposite Party failed to provide any service as he committed to the Complainant. The said software did not functioning properly from the day of installation and the Opposite Party did not provide three user guide Training and software CD team viewer support and also did not provide the one year free service of the said software and did not provide the opening and closing balance for each day as well as the said software could not be locked after closing of business.

             The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party for providing the proper service but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed. Ultimately the Complainant sent a legal notice on 25.03.2015 to the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party instead of providing proper service compelled to purchase another software namely ‘Patient Management System from Soft-Tech’ on 26.04.2015 for consideration of Rs. 50,000/- only, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

             Despite proper service of the notice to the Opposite Party, the concern Opposite Party never appeared before the Forum to contest the case nor he had filed any ‘Written Version’ on his behalf or through any Ld. Advocate/Representative. Thus the Opposite Party has relinquished his scope to refute the case. So, the instant case has been heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party.

                                           Points for Determination

            The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.

                                                Decision with Reasons

            In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the Complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.

             The main allegation of the Complainant is that in spite of making the entire payment of consideration amount to the Opposite Party for purchasing a software namely ‘Trans care version 16-0-1’ the Opposite Party had failed to provide the proper service and moreover compelled the complainant to purchase another software.

             On overall evaluation of the argument by the Complainant in person and on critical appreciation of the material on record, it is evident and revealed at the time of passing Judgement that the residence of the Opposite Party, wherefrom the Complainant had purchased the said software named ‘Trans care version 16-0-1’, is at Park Street, Kolkata-700016 which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kolkata but not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hoogly District and as such this Forum has no right to pass any ‘Order’ on merit.

             Thus in this circumstances the instant case is not maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as per the Sec. 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for which the case is being dismissed with liberty given to the Complainant to file the same before the proper Forum with proper territorial jurisdiction.

             Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for for want of territorial jurisdiction and consequently the points for determination are decided in negative.

            In short, the Complainant deserves failure.

            In the result, we proceed to pass                                 

                                               O R D E R

             That the case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte with liberty to file the instant case before the proper forum with appropriate territorial jurisdiction.

             Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.