Today is fixed for passing final order The record is taken up for passing final order as ex parte.
The complainant Smt. Lakhi Rani Seth, W/O.Kailash Seth, Vill. & P.O. Panjipara, P.S.Goalpukhor, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur has filed this complaint u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act on 27.06.18 against Shri Brajesh Singh, Proprietor of Bhagwabati Machinary, Kalabhawan Market, Shop No.4, Purnea State of Bihar and Bhagabwabati Machinary, Kalabhawan Market, Shop No.4, Purnea State of Bihar.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she has some property in her address on which a newly pukka construction of rice mill/ Flour mill is there. The O.P.No.1 is a business man and proprietor of O.P.No.2 deals with materials of rice mill/ flour mill and other items. The complainant intended to start a rice mill/flour mill for her livelihood. One known local person introduced in between complainant’s husband and O.P.No.1 for purchasing some materials of rice mill or flour mill. O.P.No.1 came to the place of the complainant and inspected the place and also verbal discussion took place in between them. After verbal discussion it was settled that after completion of construction work the O.P.No.1 would supply all the materials in respect of the said mills and should install the same. It was also settled that prior to supply the materials the petitioners has to be paid 50% of the total quotation cost and accordingly the O.P.No.1 gave a quotation on 03.09.16 in the name of the husband of the complainant amounting to Rs.5,50,800/-. Further case of the complainant is that as per discussion the complainant has completed the construction work and contacted with the O.P.No.1 and as per his demand she sent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 08.05.17 in favour of Bhagwabati Machinery through R.T.G.S vide account No.8443003011000084, Bejaya Bank, Purnea Branch. After receiving the said money the O.PNo.1 assured the petitioner to supply all the materials within three months but he did not supply the same. The complainant in several times trying to contact with the O.P.No.1 over phone but he has not received the phone call. Accordingly, the O.P.No.1 committed a cheating on his part. Thereafter, the Ld. Advocate Gouranga Bhowmick sent an Advocate’s letter dt.27.02.18 through Regd. Post but, the O.P did not received the same and the cause of action arose on 2nd week of March,2018 when the advocate’s letter was returned.
Upon this back ground the complainant prays to direct the O.P to pay the deposited amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Inspite of having service of notice upon the O.P did not turn up and accordingly the case was fixed up for ex parte hearing.
In order to prove the case the complainant herself examined as P.W.1 ex parte and filed documents namely quotation dt.03.09.16, counter foil of bank deposit amounting to Rsd.3,00,000/- in favour of Bhagwabati Machinary at Bejaya Bank, Purnea Branch, Bihar and advocate letter dt.27.02.18 are marked as Exbts.1,2 and 3.
On perusal of the complainant and oral evidence of the P.W.1, I find that the fact in the complaint about oral discussion regarding agreement has been reflected in the P.W.1 but the conversion of the complaint that the complainant has some property on which a newly pukka construction of rice mill or flour mill is there in her address is totally difference from his another version either in the complaint or in the deposition that after completion of construction work the O.P.No.1 will supply all the materials in respect of the rice mill/flour mill are totally contradictory in nature. That apart, the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 are within the district Purnea in the State of Bihar and the deposited amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was made at Bejaya Bank, Purnea Branch in the State of Behar. Apart from it the oral discussion as per version of the P.W.1 was taken place in between O.P.No.1 and her husband and in between the complainant and O.P.No.1. From Exbt.1 it is seen that quotation dt.30.09.16 has been given in the name of Kailash Seth who is the husband of the complainant and the husband did not came to lodge the complaint. The question arose under what capacity the present complainant lodges the complaint, even there is no reason either in the complaint or in the oral evidence of P.W.1 regarding lodging of complaint by her. According to Consumer Protection Act she has no locus standi to lodge the complaint. Furthermore, neither the husband nor her known local person who introduced her husband and O.P.No.1 regarding the purchase of materials is not forthcoming to support her version. Quotation is not an agreement or contract, It is an invitation to treat offer. Ld. Advocate for the complainant cited a decision reported in (2003) AIR (MP) 261 and also cited another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A No.7693 of 1996 with submission that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Perused those decisions of the Hon’ble Courts. From the complaint as well as evidence it is clear that the O.P Nos.1 and 2 has neither carried on business or branch of business or any other materials dealing with the complainant in the place whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction ,even no cause of action whether wholly or in part has arisen in the place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The factual aspects of those decisions are totally different from the factual aspects of this case. The whole material as produced by the complainant is against the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Apart from it the present complainant has no locus standi to lodge the complaint specially when she is neither owner of the property nor any quotation which is invitation to treat offer has been made in her favour.
Under the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that this case is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and other reasons stated above.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
That the case being No.C.C.39/18 be and the same is dismissed ex parte but without cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost
