IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 38/S/2013. DATED : 31.03.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PPRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : M/S NARBIDHYA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,
Having its Registered Office at
33, Church Road, Sharma Building,
Siliguri – 734 001, Dist.- Darjeeling.
Represented through Suresh Kumar Agarwal,
S/O Late Narshing Das Agarwal,
Permanent resident of Chowkbazar, Kurseong,
Presently residing at Block 4, Flat No.A,
Green Valley Apartment, Bhanu Nagar,
P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.
O.P. 1. : RAJOO ENGINEERS LIMITED,
Represented through The Managing Director,
Administration & Marketing Office,
Survey No.210, Plot No.1, Industrial Area,
Vereval (Shapar), Rajkot – 360 002, Gujrat.
2. : D. MEHETA,
Rajoo Engineers Limited,
Administration & Marketing Office,
Survey No.210, Plot No.1, Industrial Area,
Vereval (Shapar), Rajkot – 360 002, Gujrat.
3. : MANAS DASGUPTA,
East Zone,
Prothoma Apartment, E-1, 2nd Floor,
Bijoy Laxmi Colony, P.O.- Nabapally,
P.S.- Barasat, Kolkata – 700 126.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Souvik Sengupta, Advocate.
FOR THE OPs : Sri Utpal Saha, advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case in brief is that he had sought to purchase one LAMINA RESP-1410/800 PP and two DISPOCON, WPTF-3560-NI from the OPs, and a price agreement was drawn up with OP No.2 at Siliguri on 17.05.2012. Pursuant to the said price agreement the OPs were required to send
Contd…..P/2
-:2:-
proforma invoice mentioning the base price of the machine, and other taxes chargeable. The OPs sent a proforma invoice dated 22.05.2012 through e-mail, wherein the base price of the machine was stated as Rs.8,00,000/-, and after adding taxes the price of the machine amounted Rs.91,68,570/-. The complainant claims that the OPs have also charged for transportation cost, and errection and commissioning charges, and thus the total price to be paid by the complainant for the purchase of the machine amounted to Rs.95,28,576/-, which is contrary to the price agreement between the complainant, and OP No.2, and as per the terms of the said price agreement, the OPs are not entitled to charge for transportation, and errection, and commissioning charges. The complainant informs so to the OPs who admitted that the quoted price as per proforma invoice dated 22.05.2012 was sent to the complainant erroneously. The complainant claims that pursuant to negotiations between the parties it paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 04.06.2012 through RTGS from the account of the complainant at the Standard Chartered Bank, Siliguri branch. On 24.07.2012 OP No.2 verbally informed the complainant that the machines could not be delivered at the negotiated price as per price agreement dated 17.05.2012, and thus the complainant refrained from paying any further sum to the OPs. The complainant claims that the OPs have violated the price agreement dated 17.05.2012. The complainant had asked the OPs for return of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- that he had paid earlier, but all in vain. The complainant accordingly filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to return to it the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, together with some other reliefs. This case has been instituted by the complainant M/s Narbidhya Commerce Pvt. Ltd., resident of Dist. Jalpaiguri against the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3.
OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised the complainant. OPs have stated that the proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act are non est, null and void and without jurisdiction and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint as it does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for decision
1. Whether the case is maintainable or not ?
Contd…..P/3
-:3:-
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Point No.1.
From the cause title it appears that the complainant has filed this case against the OP Nos.1 & 2 who are the resident of Gujrat. OP No.3 is a resident of Barasat, Kolkata- 126.
These OPs are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :- (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 [carried 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.
Accordingly this Forum is not in a position to deliver judgment of this case where both the parties have adduced some papers. So, the case fails due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is not necessary to discuss the other issues as the case is not maintainable in law.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the Consumer Case No.38/S/2013 is dismissed without any cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
