S. COARI, MEMBER.

26.03.2013.

The record is placed today for passing necessary orders on the point of admissibility of the present petition of complaint which has been filed by the Complainant, Smt. Leela Agarwal against the O.P. – Sri Pushkar Mehrotra thereby praying for a direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.11,52,276/- as per prayer 32 of the petition of complaint and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages for loss of time, harassment, mental agony etc. along with litigation cost to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant engaged the O.P. who happens to be a legal practitioner to look after her case pending before Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad.  According to the Complainant, the land of the Complainant has been acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the provision of Land Acquisition Act thereby granting a meager compensation.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such allowance of compensation, the Complainant had to take recourse to law by filing an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad and in the process engaged O.P. as her Advocate for looking after the said appeal in the year 2007.  It is the further case of the Complainant that from time to time under false pretext the O.P. has taken a sum of Rs.4,97,945/- without rendering any service at all and has sent false information to the Complainant thereby intimating that the Hon’ble High court, Allahabad has ordered a payment to the tune of Rs.21,69,286/- in favour of the Complainant – Claimant.  According to the Complainant, after due enquiry the Complainant has come to learn that from 24.07.1998 till 08.08.2006 the O.P. has not taken any steps in the said appeal preferred at the instance of the Complainant and has cheated the Complainant by misleading her in supplying some false and fictitious information and has also cheated the Hon’ble Court by making fraudulent statements about some non-existent order passed by the Hon’ble Court.  According to the Complainant, all those acts and omissions on the part of the O.P. tantamounted to gross deficiency in service and also practicing fraud and cheating of the Complainant and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal. 

At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that though the Complainant resides at Kolkata and the O.P. carries on his legal profession at Allahabad, but as the payments were made by the Complainant either by sending cash or cheques on different dates from Kolkata to the O.P. at Allahabad, the territorial jurisdiction of the present complaint case very much lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and considering all these aspects the complaint may be admitted thereby affording an opportunity to the Complainant to vindicate her grievances levelled against the O.P. by filing the present petition of complaint in due course of law.

We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Complainant as regards the admissibility of the petition of complaint including the point of territorial jurisdiction and find that in this case admittedly, the Complainant resides in Kolkata and the O.P. carries on his legal profession at Allahabad.  As per provision of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act the present case does not come under the territorial jurisdiction of the present Commission.  According to Ld. Advocate as the Complainant has made several payments either in cash or by cheques issued/sent from Kolkata to the O.P., the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is attracted by implication.  We have duly considered this aspect of the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, but are unable to accept such proposition as when the provision of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides the different criteria which attracts the jurisdiction of consumer fora and the point raised by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant being clearly outside those provisions, we do not think that this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction in respect of the present complaint case under the facts and circumstances so mentioned and pleaded by/on behalf of the Complainant.  Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussion we do not think that this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present petition of complaint, which, in our opinion, should not be admitted for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Hence, ordered that the petition of complaint stands dismissed without being admitted.