This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 22.11.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in CC No 71 of 2018. The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant/Appellant registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri to the effect that he had constructed a building of measuring 16,500 sq. ft and wanted to decorate the said building through Interior Designer and as per advice of respondent No. 1 Deepak Das he had appointed respondent No. 2 Sri. Gourab Prasad as Interior Designer and both the appellant and respondent had entered into an oral agreement to complete the said interior decoration and he has time to time made payment of the cost of interior decoration. The respondents have intentionally and deliberately failed to complete the interior decoration in spite of the full money was realized from the Complainant/Appellant and for that reason he registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The O.P No. 2 in spite of notice did not take steps to contest the case while O.P. No. 1 submitted the W.V and contested the case. Subsequently, the O.P cum respondent No. 1 filed a petition dated 11.09.2019 to the effect that the O.P. No. 2 in collusion with the appellant has framed a false Consumer Case against him with intention to harassment and squeezing money from him. The further case is that the Appellant/Complainant registered a Money Suit against him before the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division at Jalpaiguri District Court Bearing Money Suit No 51 of 2018 and for that reason the Consumer Case is not maintainable here. The further case of the O.P No. 1 is that that O.P. No. 2 had no connection with the alleged agreement but he has been falsefully impleaded in this case in order to impress the Forum that at last a part of cause of action had arisen at Siliguri. Ld. Forum after hearing the Appellant/Complainant and O.P. No. 1 came into a conclusion that as the Money Suit was instituted at Jalpaiguri not at Siliguri, the Consumer Case of the Complainant was barred for want of territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the observation of Ld. Forum was defective and not vested in law. The respondent No. 1 Deepak Das has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. S. Mandal. The respondent No. 2 appears in this case but did not ultimately did not contest the case. The appeal was heard in presence of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant and respondent No. 1.

Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that the Complainant Ronit Kumar Jha is a man of Siliguri town under the P.S of New Jalpaiguri, District Jalpaiguri and the O.P. No. 1 Deepak Das is also a man of District Jalpaiguri. According to the cause title of the Consumer Complaint the respondent No. 2 G. Bansal is a man of Siliguri within District Darjeeling. The Complainant claims that he came into an agreement with both respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to complete the process of interior decorating in the newly constructed house of the appellant. The respondent No. 2 as contractor and interior engineer deputed the respondent No. 1 to complete the process of interior decorating and both were associated with the alleged agreement and transaction. Now, the question is whether by filing a Civil Suit against respondent No. 1 in Jalpaiguri Court the Complainant/Appellant should be debarred from institute a separate case under the coverage of Consumer Protection Act before the Siliguri D.C.D.R.F., secondly, whether the instant Consumer Complaint hits the point of territorial jurisdiction. Ld. Advocate of the respondent No. 1 submits that the Complainant/Appellant being an Advocate has manufactured a false case against a carpenter respondent No. 1 who has done the interior work in the house of the appellant but he could not realize the contractual money from the appellant and while he raised the said claim he was harassed by instituting two cases simultaneously by the Complainant. Ld. Advocate of the appellant countered this allegations by both respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were liable to compensate him as because that after squeezing some huge money from him they could not perform their obligations to complete the process of interior decorating in full satisfaction and for that reason he has instituted the Money Suit for claiming the excess money he has already paid to the respondent No. 1 and he has filed the instant Consumer Case before the Ld. Forum for the deficiency of service against them. After, going through the entire pleadings of Money Suit as well as the Consumer Complaint and the W.V submitted by the respondent No. 1 we find that the Money Suit was instituted by the Complainant/Appellant for recovery the money from the respondent No. 1 at Jalpaiguri Court as because the house of the Complainant is situated within the territory of Jalpaiguri District. While, he has instituted the Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri as because the respondent No. 2 has a residence and an office within the jurisdiction of Siliguri, D.C.D.R.F. As per provisions of Section 11 of the C.P Code 1986, if any, Opposite Parties have any residence or office or business place situates within the jurisdiction of a particular Consumer Forum then there is an opportunity to institute a case in that particular Forum. There is no technical irregularity in instituting a case against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 12 of C.P Act, 1986 before Ld. D.C.D.R.F Siliguri. The cause of action in instituting the Money Suit and the cause of action in registering the Consumer Complaint are not identical. The Money Suit was instituted in order to recovery money from the respondent No. 1. As the Complainant thinks that he has paid excess money in proportionate to the work of the respondent No. 1 and he has registered the instant Consumer Complaint for getting the compensation for harassment and on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. So, the order of Ld. Forum suffers from technical irregularities and the observations of the Ld. Forum are not appreciable in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the appeal should be allowed and the order of Ld. Forum under challenge in appeal should be dismissed.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is here by allowed and contest without cost. The order of Ld. Forum dated 22.11.2019 in CC No 71 of 2018 is here by set aside. Ld. Forum is requested to re-open the case and to adopt the process for mitigating this Consumer Dispute as per provisions of law as soon as practicable. Both parties are asked to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F Siliguri for fixing a date of hearing of the case as per schedule to be fixed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F Siliguri. Fix 13.01.2022 for appearance of the parties of the case before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F Siliguri for doing the needful.