DATE OF FILING: 8.5.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 16.2.2016
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
This case is posted today for filing counter by the complainant and hearing on the petition dated 17.7.2014 from both sides. The complainant not filed any counter on the petition dated 17.7.2014. Neither the complainant nor his advocate present today. Advocate for O.P. is present today. The advocate for O.P. filed an objection petition dt.17.7.2014 that the case is not maintainable in this Forum because this court has no jurisdiction.
2. On perusal of complaint we found that the complainant has filed a complaint case against the KRIDAY REALTY Private Limited (A subsidiary of Tata Housing Development of Tata Housing Development Company ltd.) 4th floor Creative plaza, Rasulgarh square, Bhubaneswar alleging to refund the initial booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only ) by an account payee cheque bearing No.804004 dt.13.7.2013 drawn on their joint account vide State Bank of India, Medical Campus Branch at Berhampur being amount for initial booking. After the receipt of the cheque the O.P. appropriated the said amount issued a money receipt by its letter dt. 19.7.2014 to the complainant. After receipt of the said money the O.P. was slept and silent. No indication will be taken from the side of the O.P. Being aggrieved the complainant filed this case before the Forum with a prayer to give direction to O.P. in this case to refund the initial booking amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only ). .
3. On dated 17.7.2014 the O.P. filed a petition alongwith written version. In his petition O.P. stated that this case is not maintainable as neither the O.P. residing here nor carries on any business or having any branch office within this jurisdiction and further there has been no cause of action arose here. The O.P. further stated that complainant documents and petition clearly reveal that the cause of action arose at Bhubaneswar and the O.P’s Branch office at Bhubaneswar. So this Forum has absolutely no jurisdiction.
4. On 9.2.2016 neither the complainant nor his advocate present and not filed any counter to the petition filed by O.P. on dated 17.7.2014. The Advocate for O.P. is present. Heard the petition on the point of maintainability from the side of the advocate for O.P.
5. After going through the whole case the only question that arises for our consideration is whether the Dist. Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition? Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, deals with jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum which provided that a complaint shall be instituted in a Dist. Forum within the local limits of jurisdiction either the O.P. or any of the O.Ps at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a Branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action wholly or in part arises. But in the instant case none of the O.P. is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor their any branch Office in this jurisdiction nor the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
6. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in Ritu Bhuwanja versus The Secretary M/s Vatsa Corporation ltd. And another 2010 (1) CPR 75 such as : “ As per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint could be instituted within the local limits or a District Forum where the Opposite Party resides or carries on business or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.
In the light of the above decision of law and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion the complainant petition is not entertainable by this Redressal Forum. Hence the complaint petition filed by the complainant is hereby dropped with a liberty to file this case before the appropriate Forum as per law.
Order is pronounced in the Forum today on 16th February 2016.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
