The ld. advocate for the complainant appeared and represented his client by filing hazira.  Heard the ld. advocate for the complainant as to the matter of admission hearing of the case. 

The complainant has come up with the instant complaint against the OP having business place situated in the district of Howrah with a prayer for direction upon the OP to replace the D. G. Set on the ground that the complainant came to know on 20-05-2013 that the D. G. Set in question which was supplied on 23-04-2013 at Tamluk was not in conformity with the specification mentioned in the quotation dt. 01-04-2013.

Perused the petition of complaint and the Xerox copies of the documents filed.

It revels from the record that OP actually carries on business/personally works for gain in the district of Howrah.  Moreover, there is nothing to show that he resides in the district of Purba Medinipur.  Subsequent detection of non-supply of the goods in question at Tamluk as per quotation as alleged, to our mind, does not give rise to any cause of action in the district of Purba Medinipur.

Under such circumstances, we feel that this petition of complaint should not be accepted for further proceeding for want of local limit of jurisdiction.

Hence, the petition of complaint is rejected i.e. the instant case is dismissed for want of local limit of jurisdiction.  However, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent forum, if so advised.