Today is fixed for admission haring.

Complainants file hazira and complainants also file two photocopies of Registered Deeds one of dated 26.03.1990 and another of dated 02.08.2016.  First deed is the Deed of Sale and second one is relating to Partition of the property among three brothers which property is mentioned in first deed.  

Heard the ld advocate for the complainants.

The case of the complainants is that in the year 1990 the schedule mentioned property of the complaint was purchased by three brothers who are the complainants here from one Rasaraj Mallick and the said property after sixteen years on 03.08.2006 became partitioned among these three brothers by a Registered Deed of Partition with demarcated portion measuring each three kathas and three chhataks of land in each portion mentioned as first party, second party and third party with valuation for each of Rs.4,66,666/- totalling Rs.13,99,998/- and the land is so situated at Baikunthyapur, Mouza-Dabgram under P.S.-Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.  It is further contended in the complaint that the complainants entered into Deed of development agreement in respect of the total land measuring about 8 (eight) kathas with the OP on 31.07.2013 on terms and conditions as enumerated in the said agreement dated 31.03.2013 and when the development work with assurance of handing of flats to the complainants after construction thereon became not successful within the stipulated period of the said agreement then another supplementary Deed of Agreement was executed on 09.05.2016 where complainants being the landlords were to be allocated by the OP being developer.  It is in the complaint paragraph no.9 that complainants received only a sum of Rs.15,32,000/- on various dates from the OP as per Memorandum Of Understanding dated 21.07.2013 out of total consideration of Rs.46,30,000/-.  Here by filing this instant case complainants have prayed for that the declaration of agreements dated 31.07.2013 and 09.05.2016 and Memorandum Of Understanding dated 21.07.2013 have been exhausted as no more existing and two other declarations over the property have also been sought for along with a direction upon the OP to handover possession of the schedule land to and in favour of the complainants with further direction of payment of Rs.6,00,000/- to complainants for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for irreparable loss and injury sustained by the complainants. 

After hearing ld advocate for the complainants over the matter of admissibility of this case we have gone through the petition of complaint itself, the documents on record as filed and the relevant Provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  During consideration it is first noticed that the property in question which is the subject matter of this case is situated completely out of the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum at Siliguri though the OP’s residential address has been mentioned within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is pertinent to note here that for deficiency in service consumer must be related with the goods or services.  Here in this case, it is seen that cause of action wholly or in part on this backdrop has not arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the property is out of such jurisdiction if the monetary reliefs as sought for is counted with the valuation of the property, even of the year 2006 as mentioned in the partition deed it exceeds the pecuniary limit of this District Forum. 

After due consideration of all these through the documents of record it appears to us from para no.9 of the complaint that monetary transactions regarding this matter has also done beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  The nature of the case as it is disclosed from the prayer portion of the complaint including the body of it appears to be civil in nature where declarations of different types have been sought for seeking the deeds for treatment of the same as inoperative.  The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for the consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.  Therefore, the instant case is not a deserving case to be admitted by this District Forum. 

Accordingly, it is not admitted.