17.04.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Revision Petition u/s 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OP/Revisionist against the Order No. 6 dt. 28.3.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. 5 of 2014, rejecting the petition of maintainability filed by the OP on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned.

          Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 12.2.2008 with the OP/Revisionist for purchase of plot of land measuring about 1800 sq. ft. located at Joykrishnapur under Mouza-Chiyari, J.L. No. 63 within the P.S. Sonarpur in the District of South 24 Parganas, as averred in the Petition of Complaint, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and accordingly, paid Rs. 30,000/- in advance.  Thereafter, upon payment of the consideration money in full and the cost of stamp duty and registration, when the Complainant/ Respondent contacted the OP/Revisionist for execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said plot of land, the OP/Revisionist expressed their inability to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of said plot of land and offered to the Complainant/Respondent alternative plot of land in a different location, to which the Complainant/Respondent did not give his consent.  Then the Complainant/Respondent demanded refund of the money paid with interest @ 18% per annum, but without any success.  Then the Complainant/ Respondent filed the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  In course of proceeding before the Ld. District Forum the OP/Revisionist moved a petition challenging the maintainability of the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum which rejected the said petition of maintainability.  Aggrieved by such order the OP has preferred the instant Revision.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist/OP submits that the office address of the Revisionist/OP, i.e. P-525, Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani, P.S. Lake, Kolkata-700 029, where all the activities related to the plot of land in question were undertaken, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned, and hence, the instant case is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

          It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the location of the land, where no cause of action took place, cannot confer the territorial jurisdiction upon the Ld. District Forum concerned.

          The Ld. Advocate adds that the impugned order was passed without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the Revisionist/OP.

          The ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the submission so put forward, the impugned order should be set aside, it being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

          On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the plot of land, involved in the present controversy, is situated under Sonarpur Police Station, falling in the district of South 24 Parganas and thus the case is very much within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum of  South 24 Parganas.  He finally submits that in this position of the case the impugned order ought to be sustained, it being just and proper.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival contentions and perused the materials on records including the impugned order.

          The plot of land, which is the subject matter of the present controversy, is undisputedly located within the Sonarpur Police Station in the district of South 24 Parganas and this location of plot has bearing with the disputes in the present Complaint.  Therefore, a part of cause of action, which is nothing but a bundle of facts, as required u/s 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas.  Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum is well within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned.

          Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.  The impugned order is affirmed.  The Ld. District Forum will proceed with the case on merits and in accordance with the provisions of law.