The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Managing Authority, Rochak Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and O.P No.2 is Suresh Chandra Panda, At/P.O- Arangabad, Dist- Jajpur.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased scheduled items from O.P No.1 on 11.03.2015 on payment of cash and started business in the name and style of DISHA ENTERPRISES having sales tax license, where O.P No.2 is the agency of O.P No.1. The items purchased found to be quality problem, thus the Complainant intimated the same to the O.P over telephone, personal approach and through mail, but the O.P did not pay any heed to return the product. The defective product purchased by the Complainant could not be sold by him, thus intimated the O.P in several occasions, followed by constant follow up, but the O.P did not return back the same, though an agreement entered between the Parties to this effect. The Complainant sent an advocate notice for deficiency-in-service by the O.P. The above said items are food products and found unhealthy, which is to be returned back by the O.P, but due to non-return by the O.Ps, the Complainant sustained heavy loss amounting deficiency-in-service by the O.P. The Complainant has prayed for realization of scheduled items of Rs.80,739/- (Rupees Eighty thousand seven hundred thirty nine) only with interest along with compensation.

                    3. Though the O.P No.1 has appeared in this case through his Advocate, but has not filed written version but the Advocate for O.P No.1 has participated in hearing of this case.

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P No.2 for his appearance, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.2 is set ex-parte.

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any document in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has purchased the scheduled items mentioned in the complaint petition from the O.P No.1 through O.P No.2, which were found to be quality problem. In spite of several approaches, the O.P No.1 did not replace the same items, for which he has filed this case in this Forum praying for realisation of scheduled items amounting to Rs.80,739/- (Rupees Eighty thousand seven hundred thirty nine) only with interest along with compensation. In the instant case, the Complainant has prayed for deficiency of service, but when it relates to goods, how it is related to deficiency of service, the reason is best known to the Complainant, which is un-explained by him. On the other hand, the O.P No.2 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. Further, the O.P No.1 challenged the case on the point of jurisdiction as the O.P No.1 is of Kolkata and the O.P No.2 is of Jajpur. According to Section-11 of C.P Act, 1986, out of which the relevant portion of Section-11(2) (b) reads as follows:- “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”. The Advocate for O.P No.1 has relied upon the authority reported in I (2000) CPJ-164 in the case of Mrs. Sailandri S Ramjeevan (Vrs.) The Managing Director, Air India, Mumbai & Anr., wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State C.D.R Commission, Chennai that a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction are under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. Furthermore, in support of it, reliance can be placed upon the authority reported in III (1999) CPJ-623 in the case of Hari Chand (Vrs.) Bayer India Limited. In the instant case, regarding territorial jurisdiction of the present District Forum, no material evidence is available in the case record.

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Moreover, the Complainant is also not clear whether he has any quality problem or damage of article purchased. No specific money receipt regarding purchase of scheduled items has not been filed by the Complainant. The context of complaint petition shows that there was quality problem of goods, but in the scheduled items, it has been mentioned as damage of goods. Nature of damage or quality problem has not been proved. So, in this regard, the Complainant has also failed to establish his case clearly. Thus, on consideration of both the cases as mentioned above, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against the O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 27th day of March, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.