Today is fixed for hearing on the point of maintainability of this Complaint.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant files his hajira.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.  Perused the petition of complaint and the materials on record.

It appears from the fact of this petition of complaint that this Complainant applied to O.P. no.1 Bank on 09-10-2015 for opening a Customer Service Point (CSP) linked, with FIA Technology for the purpose of his livelihood by means of self-employment.

Thereafter, he sent a Demand Draft of Rs.16, 100/- in favour of O.P. no.2 and then O.P. no.2 sent a devise without Laptop to this Complainant; but Complainant could not be able to open C.S.P. 

Thereafter, he made several correspondences to these O.Ps. alleging that he is not able to operate  the function of C.S.P.

   On 28-06-2016 this Complainant informed to O.P. no.3 that he is not satisfied with FIA Technology for it’s poor service and requested O.P. no.3 to refund deposited amount immediately to him as this Complainant is not willing to continue with the service of FIA Technology and the conduct of the O.Ps. are tantamount to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.

So, this Complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs.1,17,000/- and other reliefs.

It appears from the petition of complaint that out of four O.Ps. only the O.P. no.1 is carrying business within the jurisdiction of this Forum ; but other O.Ps. are carrying their respective businesses are not within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

It also reveals from the petition of complaint that Demand Draft has drawn for getting FIA Technology service in favour of O.P. no.2 who is carrying his business at Gurgaon which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

It also reveals from para – 14 of the petition of complaint that Complainant is not satisfied with the service of FIA Technology for it’s poor service availed from O.P. no.2 and he informed this matter to O.P. no.3.  So, we find that the cause of action as well as grievance about the FIA service is only against O.P. no.2 who is service provider not against other O.Ps.

No documents have been filed to satisfy us prima facie that this Complainant has made payment to these O.Ps. to get FIA service as alleged in this case.

No Receipt in this regard have also been filed to show that he purchased service in question.

Demand Draft cannot be termed as receipt for getting FIA Service from O.P. no.02.

There is nothing on record to show that O.P. no.2 is carrying business or have it’s Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

     Moreover, we find that Complainant could not be able to satisfy us prima facie that he has availed services as alleged from all O.Ps.  including O.P. no.1 / Bank and he has made payment for the alleged service to all O.Ps.

Moreover, we find prima facie that O.P.no.2 is doing his business beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. 

There is nothing on record to show that cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 (3) CPR page 351 (NC) that territorial jurisdiction for filing Consumer Case lies at a place where Branch Office of O.P. is located and also cause of action has arisen.

In the present case we find no cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this Forum against O.Ps. no.1, 3 & 4 who is carrying business within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  But we find that there is cause of action against O.P. no.2 at Gurgaon for getting FIA Service by Complainant who is carrying his business beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

So, in view of observation of Hon’ble National Commission and in view of section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986.  We find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint.

In view of the above facts & circumstances and discussions made above we are inclined to hold that Complainant could not be able to satisfy us and he is Consumer as defined section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We also find that O.P. no.1 only has been made party to this case with a view to bring this case within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum though there is no cause of action against O.P. no.1 / Bank.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we hold that this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is             

                                                                         Ordered

That the Complaint Case no.74 of 2016 be and same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  Liberty is given to Complainant to avail legal remedy by approaching proper Forum / Court having jurisdiction according to law.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost, if applied for.