The case of the complainant in brief is that  in persuasion of the advertisement floated in the net/website by the OPs to provide unlimited pleasure at new year party event for 2014 at Tulip Star Hotel, Mumbai, the complainant along with his wife and two children book the passes/ tickets for six couple including the complainant and his family with OP No.4 Ms. Neeta Tiwari through cell phone No.9167491991 of Ms. Neeta Tiwari for delivery of the tickets at the house of Mr. Abdush Rungta of Mumbai and accordingly, OP No.4 delivered the ticket/ pass on 30-12-2013 on payment of cash Rs.22,320/-. After delivery of the pass/ticket the complainant, his family and the relatives went to Mumbai from Dibrugarh, to attend New year party event. But when they reached at Tulip Star Hotel at around 8:00 PM they found long queue at the entrance gate. They took the queue and after being security check up the staff of the OPs took the pass/ticket from them at the entrance gate and put light blue colour band on the wrist of the complainant and his family members along with the relatives and allowed them to go inside the area of the venue. The complainant after fastening the blue colour band on his wrist asked the employee to give back the  passes but they refused and informed that they shall not be permitted to enter the premises if they do not deposit the pass. As such, the original passes are lying with the OPs. While they entered  into the venue they found large gathering of people inside the premises and there was no management at all. The situation was so horrible inside, with gathering of 5000 peoples that it was impossible to enjoy there. There was no starter at all inside the venue as mentioned in the advertisement. There was a long queue for buffet main course but to the complainant  and  his companions were shocked to see that there was no food to eat. There was only one counter and a person who was serving liquor to hundreds of visitors just like serving to beggars.  Seeing the interior environment the complainant and his companions were surprised, whereby the new year event of them have been ruined. There was no management and nothing at all. The OPs with malafide intention persuaded the complainant with such false advertisement in net with intention to  cheat the public. At this act of the OPs the entire crowd get enraged with, as there was no proper security, safety and proper arrangement. The complainant and his family and other companions were scared there and hurriedly left the place at about 10:00PM. The OPs by their act cheated the complainant with the intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant for which the complainant had to suffer mental agony, harassment along with monetary loss. The act of the OPs were out and out deficiency in service for which the complainant prayed to pass an order for Rs.2,02,320/- for visiting from Dibrugarh to Mumbai along with the value of flight ticket, event pass along with compensation with interest and cost of litigation.

   After registering the case notices were issued to all the OPs. OP No.1,2 and 3 submitted  their written statement after receiving the notice whereas, OP No.4,5 and 6 remain absent and also not submitted written statement for which case against them proceeded ex-parte.

  OP No.1,2 and 3 while filing the written statement stated inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. Further, it is stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the whole cause of action arose at Mumbai since all the OPs are residing and carrying their business at Mumbai. The complainant has not produced any proof of his alleged transaction with the OPs. The OPs admitted that they have organised an event party for new year celebration in the garden of Tulip Star Hotel at Mumbai and the said  event was organised and the entry to the event was by an invitation card only and the back side of the said invitation cared following governing terms and conditions were mentioned.

                    *   Right of admission are reserved with the management.

*   Misplacement of invitation card will restrict the entry

     at the venue.

*   This invitation card is non- transferable.

*   Any changes can be done without prior notice by

    purple stone entertainment.

*   Event rules and condition apply. For further details

    visit our website.

*  This is an invitation only.

 Further, no invitation pass were sold to the complainant or his family members and as per record of the OP No-1. Besides, no cash is received by any employee without issuing money receipt. In fact the complainant has not purchased the invitation card from OP No.1 and the invitation card is not transferrable as such, it seems that the complainant entered into the event using some other person’s invitation card illegally.  Besides, complainant has not filed the invitation card along with the complaint to prove the case. The OPs stated that the complainant wrongly stated that the invitation cards were taken back from the guest after security check. Whereas, all the facility of the event can be enjoyed only on showing the invitation card so the question of taking back the invitation card does not arise and guest were required to preserve the invitation card with them.  The OPs admitted that there was big gathering of invitees to celebrate and welcome new year but the situation was not horrible inside. Sufficient foods and liquor were kept inside the venue and there was no intention to cheat anybody. However, in such large gathering some mischievous element may create trouble by taking pleasure and harassing other people. Whereas, the venue was totally well protected  which is situated on the Juhu Beach. There is no any deficiency in service and hence no loss and harassment caused to the complainant. The complainant himself was unlawful guest who entered without having valid invitation card. Hence, the complaint petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

    In this case the complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 31 (thirty one) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, the OPs have not examined any witness.

         DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

   Upon going through the evidence  and the argument advanced by the parties it is found that the complainant being persuaded by advertisement of the OPs booked the passes for the complainant and his family to entertain the new year party event for 2014 at Tulip Star Hotel, Mumbai, which were delivered on 30-12-2013 on payment of cash Rs.22,320/- at the house of Mr. Abdush Rungta of Mumbai. On the particular day and time of the event  when the complainant and his family entered into the venue he found that there was no management and nothing at all. The situation was horrible inside the venue with gathering of five thousand peoples. There was no food to eat, no management, no sincerity etc. Seeing the interior situation the complainant was surprised, whereby new year event of them had been ruined. From the above it appears that the OPs have floated the falls advertisement with malafide intention to cheat the common public. The complainant had to suffer sufficient mental agony, harassment and loss of money. On the other hand, the OPs submitted that the case is not maintainable as because this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the complainant and whole cause of action arose at Mumbai since all the OPs are residing and carrying on their business at Mumbai. Besides, the OPs admitted that they have organised an event party for new year celebration in the garden of Tulip Star Hotel at Mumbai and the same was well organised. Rather, the complainant without purchasing invitation card/ pass has entered illegally into the venue of the event since the invitation card was not transferable. Further, the complainant has not filed invitation card/pass to prove the case.

    Before going to the merit of the case, the basic issue that needs to be conceded in this case is the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum on the point of jurisdiction. The OPs stated that the whole cause of action arose at Mumbai and the OPs are residing and carrying on the business at Mumbai. The complainant has also failed to produce any proof of alleged transaction at any other place other than Mumbai. As per section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complaint shall be instituted in a district forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the OP actually and voluntarily resides and carries on business and the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Whereas, in the present case all the OPs are residing and carrying on business at Mumbai and the new year party event was also organised at Mumbai as such, as per provision of section 11 (2) (a) and (b) Mumbai Consumer Forum has only jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint petition. As per submission of the complaint the event was organised and took place at Mumbai and cash payment for the purchase of invitation card/ pass was made at Mumbai as such, no such transaction took place outside  Mumbai for which the whole cause of action arose at Mumbai only and hence consumer forum at Mumbai has only the jurisdiction. This consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and decide the same.

So far the point of  jurisdiction is concerned, the provision of section 11 (2) of C.P. Act, 1986 read as follows :-

“Sub- section 11(2) of C.P. Act

A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction –

1. 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 works for gain; or
2. 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

3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

 The provision of section11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act indicate that it is the residence of the OP or where it carries on business or personally works for gain is the relevant consideration for determining the territorial jurisdiction. The residence of the complainant does not enter in the picture under the said provision. It is clear beyond doubt that where the defendant against whom the suit is proposed to be instituted  is a company or corporation, the suit will lie in the court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the company/corporation is situated except in case where the cause of action has arisen at any other place where the company/corporation has a subordinate office in which event the suit can be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction such subordinate office is situated. However, in

 the instant case the complainant has failed to produce any proof of his alleged transaction that has taken place other than Mumbai. The complainant in his evidence stated that he booked passes /tickets with the OP No.4 Ms  Neeta Tiwari through her cell No.9167491991 for the delivery of the same to the complainant’s relative’s house of Mr. Abdush Rungta at Mumbai and OP No.4 delivered the ticket on 30-12-13 accordingly at the residence of Mr. Abdush Rungta on payment of cash Rs.22,320/-. However, the complainant failed to produce the said tickets/ passes before this Forum. According to the complainant the OPs while checking at the counters of the venue kept the said tickets/ passes and did not return which is denied by the OPs. However, it is to be mentioned here that there is no evidence to prove that the complainant purchased E-ticket  and was purchased through internet. The complainant did not purchase the E-ticket through internet but booked the same through telephone which was delivered at the house of Mr. Abdush Rungta at Mumbai on payment of cash Rs.22,320/-  Mumbai. For the reasons above it cannot be held that the cause of action arose at Dibrugarh either wholly or in part. All the OPs i.e. from OP No.1 to 6 are residing at Mumbai and also carrying on their business at Mumbai and ticket/ pass was also purchased at Mumbai and place of event was Mumbai. Under the circumstances, no part of cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against the OPs within the territory of Dibrugarh. The OPs do not actually or voluntarily resides or carry on their business or have a branch office or work for gain anywhere in Dibrugarh. As such, sub section 2(b) and (c) of section 11 of Consumer Protection Act inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are in consonance with the view with the OPs that the complaint petition filed by the complainant has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Since, there is no jurisdiction to entertain this case it  would be appropriate not to discuss the merit of this case at this juncture.

      In view of the above matter the complaint case is dismissed on the basis of which is not illegally sustainable. Further, complainant is granted opportunity to file a complaint, if so desired before an appropriate consumer forum which has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.