Order No. 06
Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no. 2/petitioner is present.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
Misc. Application dated 13.02.2023 is taken up for hearing.
Perused. Considered.
Heard both sides.
Ld. Advocate for opposite party no. 2/petitioner in Misc. Application slated that the address of the opposite party no. 1 is within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission. But the other partners who are the parties to this case resides beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Therefore, the instant complaint application has not been filed observing all formalities as stipulated U/S 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Moreover, prior to filing of the Complaint Case, the opposite party no. 7 has died. In view of above the Complaint Case is maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that this Commission as territorial jurisdiction to try the case. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant is not aware of the death of opposite party no. 7. As such, the complainant filed Misc. Application being No. 87/2023 praying for direction upon the opposite party to supply the names of the legal heirs of the deceased opposite party no. 7. The said Misc. Application 87/2023 was allowed vide order no. 5 dated 02.03.2023 by the instant Commission and today in compliance with the direction of the Commission, the opposite party no. 2 furnishes the name of the legal heirs of the deceased opposite party no. 7. Accordingly, the complainant will take proper steps for substitution in accordance to Law.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complaint case is well maintainable in law and not liable to be dismissed.
Section 34(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act states as follows :-
“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -
- the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or”
It is astonishing to note that in Paragraph – 5 of the Misc. Application, the complainant himself stated that the address of the opposite party no. 1 is well within the jurisdiction of this Commission. In spite of the same, this application has been preferred by opposite party no. 2 challenging the maintainability of the case. In our opinion, opposite party no. 2 in order to adopt delaytory tactics has preferred to file this application with full knowledge that this Commission has jurisdiction to try the case.
Therefore, the Misc. Application dated 13.02.2023 is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.
