1.     The instant revision petition is filed against the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by State Commission in Revision Petition No. 79 of 2015, which raises the question of jurisdictional error committed by the fora.

2.      The brief facts are that:

         The complainant booked a foreign tour to Europe starting from 12.4.2014 for himself and his wife.  He booked the tour from the website of OP i.e. http://www.club7holidays.co.in  on 9.12.2013.  He paid advance of Rs.10,000/- on 19.12.2013 and thereafter, Rs.40,000/- on 30.12.2013.  He paid total amount of Rs.3,57,970/-.  It was alleged that there was severe deficiency in service as OP did not provide safety and security during tour and indulged in unfair trade practice by not showing all the promises itinerary.  The complainant also sent notice to the OP through International Consumer Rights Protection Council on 5.11.2014.

2.      The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nadia, alleging deficiency in service caused by OP/petitioner in respect of Holiday Package.   The OP/petitioner challenged the maintainability of complaint before the District Forum, Nadia and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  The District Forum dismissed the application.  Therefore, the petitioner preferred revision petition No. 79 of 2015 before the State Commission, West Bengal.  It was also dismissed. 

3.      Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.4.2016, the OP/petitioner filed the instant revision petition.

4.      Heard Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner.  The complainant/respondent is absent, he has sent his response in the place of argument.  The counsel for the Petitioner/OP submitted that the complainant booked his itinerary by making cash payment in the office of OP at Kolkata.  He brought my attention to the cash receipt voucher of Rs.10,000/- from Kolkata.  Therefore, there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the District Forum, Nadia. 

5.       On perusal of all the documents and the email communication, receipts filed by complainant, it clearly transpire that the complainant got the information about the tour through the website of OP.  Several email communications took place between the complainant and the OP at the time of booking.  The complainant made payment of ticket through cash and cheques.  Complainant relied upon few authorities from Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely:

Secretary, Thirumurugan Coop. Agri. Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha and Ors. (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 305 in which it was held that       “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss 3, 11, 17 and 21 – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum vis-à-vis specific remedies under other Act  … 1986 Act should be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully having regard to the additional/extended jurisdiction conferred under S.3…. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider.  For instance, in addition to granting a specific relief the forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering etc.

Also, in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65, it was held that…. “The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post”

6.        Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.  The aforesaid provision reads as under:

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) xxxxx….

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each 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, or

(b)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; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 

           On reading of the above, it is clear that the District Forum within the local limits of whose, the cause of action either wholly or in part, has arisen, shall have jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.

7.        In the instant case, the OP has submitted offer pertaining to information about the tour on its website.  The complainant after going through the offer remitted amount through cash and cheques with the OP.

8.        It is pertinent to note that the complainant is a retired employee.  He is a senior citizen, 63 years of age.  From the record, it is transpires that most of payments were made through cheques drawn at the place of residence of complainant i.e. Nadia.  Therefore, part of cause of action has arisen at Nadia.  Thus, in view of Section 11(2)(c), District Forum, Nadia has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Mere generation of receipts by the OP at Kolkatta will not carry away territorial jurisdiction. 

9.        On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any error apparent in the impugned order of State Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.  The OP shall pay Rs.2,000/- by way of demand draft to the complainant on or before the next date of hearing.  Issue notice to both the parties to appear before the District Forum, Nadia for further adjudication on 4.1.2017. 

10.      Copy of notice be sent to District Forum, Nadia.