Today is fixed for hearing of the petition dtd. 11.09.2019 of the OP No.1.

                             Complainant files hazira in person.

                             The appointed, commissioner files a prayer praying for time to draft the inspection report.

                             Lawyer’s hazira on behalf of the OP No. 1 is also filed. Case proceeds ex-parte against OP No. 2 vide order No. 10 dtd. 11.12.2018. OP No. 1 files a copy of the plaint of money suit (51/18) filed by the complainant before the Ld. Civil Judge(Senior Division) Jalpaiguri.

                             Both the sides were present and a patient hearing was given to each of them.

                             The G+1 storied residential building, the interior decoration of which is in question, is on the land of the complainant and the said land is at Surya Sen Colony, which is under New Jalpaiguri P.S. as appears from the address of the complainant himself.

                             The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submitted that no schedule of the property is mentioned in the plaint to which the complainant agreed indirectly by arguing that the Deed of the concerned property is enclosed as supporting documents. Such omission on the Part of the complainant appears to have been committed so that the notice of the Forum is not attracted at least, at first instance, to the territorial location of the property in question because what is perused first is the plaint and tally with the supporting document follows.

                             The complainant had given the work of interior decoration to the OP No.1 hailing from Fulbari-I which is also under New Jalpaiguri P.S. and paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- up to 26.10.2017 to him (Not to the OP No.2).

                             It is the OP No.1 hailing from outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, who could not complete his work within the agreed period, i.e., before 30.06.17 and of course, against whom deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has been alleged by the complainant.

                             However, the address of the OP No.2 has been shown at Siliguri. OP No.2 has been stated to be the interior designer of OP No.1.  That the OP No.2 is the interior designer of the OP No.1 is not proved by any documentary evidence. Nor is it stated in the complaint what role the OP No.2 played so far as the interior decoration in question is concerned.

                             The OP No.2 is stated to opine that the maximum amount should not be more than Rs. 2,72,500/- already made to the OP No. 1 by the complainant.  But such opinion is not found in any document, nor has any locus standi of the OP No. 2 to so opine, been mentioned anywhere in the complaint.

                             It is not also clear why the labour charge bill is signed by OP No.2 while the receipt of payment is acknowledged by the OP No. 1 and in what capacity the OP No. 2 did so. Practically, the complainant could/did not level any specific charge against to OP No.2.

                             Though the office of the OP No.2 is, as argued by the complainant at Siliguri, yet he (OP-2) had to work as internal designer for his gain going to the House of the complainant which is within the Jalpaiguri District. Moreover, the case proceeds ex-parte against OP No. 2 since 11.12.2018 and as such he is not supposed to figure in the context disposal of the petition dtd. 11.09.2019 of the OP No.1.

                             Thus it palpably appears that the OP No.2 has been implicated in the case just to impress the Forum that, at least, a part of cause of action arose at Siliguri.

                             It is also palpable that the complainant consciously tried to create such an impression in the mind of the Forum in as much as the complainant himself filed a money-suit against the same OP and in the same matter before the Civil Judge. Sr. Divn), praying for a recovery decree, NOT of Siliguri but of Jalpaiguri being NO. MS/51/2018.  The complainant has carefully suppressed such filing before this Forum.

                             The complainant argued that Section 3 of the C.P. Act provides that the Act is in addition to the other laws in vogue which is why he filed a case, different in issue though concerning the same matter in the court of Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Jalpaiguri. However, Section 3 does not derogate Sec 11(2) of the said Act and the question why the instant case filed in Siliguri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was not filed in Jalpaiguri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or conversely, why the money-suit filed in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) of Jalpaiguri was not filed in the court of his counterpart in Siliguri, remains unanswered.

                             Therefore, this Forum is of the considered view that the case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction and the petition dtd. 11.09.2019 filed by the OP No.1 on jurisdictional point succeeds.  The said petition is allowed and the case is stopped from being proceeded further arising no question of submission of the appointed commissioner’s report in this regard.