The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Prop. of Hindustan Traders, Sarala Nagar, Jharapada, Bhubaneswar.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafied Consumer under the O.P as he had purchased an Automatic Agarbati machine along with its accessories on 21.09.2016 for maintaining his livelihood by making payment of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand) only through Axis Bank bearing A/c No.916020029983171 and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only in cash for goods transporting charges to the O.P. In this respect, the O.P has also entered into an agreement with the Complainant on the same date by ambushing all O.P’s obligation and liabilities towards the Complainant. But, since from the time i.e. 22.09.2016 of installation of the said machine of the Complainant, it has not been running well as its accessories have not been installed in the machine. So, the Complainant approached the O.P verbally and over telephonic calls to repair the above said defective machine or to replace it with a new one, but the O.P did not pay any heed to it, for which the Complainant has suffered from mental agony, harassment and financial loss. So, the Complainant on dtd.22.11.2016 served a legal notice to the O.P for replacement of the above said manufactured defective machine into a new one, but the O.P never gave ant response in this regard. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of the above said manufactured defective machine into a new one by the O.P along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Though the O.P has appeared in this case through his Advocate, but he has filed his written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version filed by the O.P was not accepted. Neither the O.P nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. Hence, the O.P is set ex-parte.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.P has not filed any documents in his support. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged Automatic Agarbati machine along with its accessories, when it was not running well as its accessories have not been installed in the machine and in spite of several approaches made by the Complainant, the O.Ps did not respond, for which there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So, the Complainant has filed this case in the Forum praying for replacement of the alleged defective machine by a new one along with compensation and litigation cost. The O.P is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. In the instant case, the sole case arises that the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case as the O.P resides at Bhubaneswar. Section-11 of the C.P Act, 1986 defines about the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain a case for redressal. But, in the instant case as the O.P resides at Bhubaneswar, it does not come within the purview of the Section-11 of the C.P Act, 1986 for jurisdiction of the Forum. The Complainant is also failed to satisfy about the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the case. For want of jurisdiction, this case is liable to be dismissed and the Forum does not want to go further into merit of this case.

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.P, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 15th day of November, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.