Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present by filing his hazira.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.  Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits interlia that Cause of Action of this case has arisen partly within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  As such as per Clause (C) section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986 this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  So, according to him that this case may be admitted and notice be issued to both the O.Ps.

In support of his argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant referred 2008 CTJ page 1127 (SCDRC) Himachal Pradesh and 2009 Consumer Protection and Trade Practices Journal page – 22 (NC).

We have carefully heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.   Perused the materials on record it appears that both the O.Ps. are carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.  Moreover, address of O.P. no.1 is in district South 24-Parganas State W.B. and address of the O.P. no.2 is at Joypur, State Rajasthan.  So, it is clear to us that both the O.Ps. are residing as well as carrying on  their respective business beyond the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  It also reveals from the contains of the petition of complaint interalia that the allegation made by the Complainant is that this Complainant purchased product like Aloo Vhujia Khatta Mitha etc. valued at

Rs.1,93,078/- from O.P. no.1 who is distributor of O.P. no.2 and the O.P. Companies have closed their business in West Bengal since September, 2015.  All products supplied to the Complainant have got damaged and O.P. no.1 declined to take back that said products despite several request made by Complainant that is why this Complainant has filed this case and prayed for relief interalia that the O.Ps. may be asked to take back it’s products and returned the money i.e. value of goods paid by Complainant to O.Ps. 

This is the fact there is nothing on record to show prima facie that part of Cause of Action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Forum.

Goods involved in this case were supplied by O.P. no.1 as capacity of distributor of O.P. no.2.  Both the O.Ps. are residing as well as carrying on their business beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It has been observed by the National Commission interalia in 2010 CTJ page 795 (NCDRC) interalia that jurisdiction (Territorial) – Shares – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -  Shares purchased from an authorized share broker at Calcutta – Payment also made at Calcutta – Shares sent to O.Ps. for transfer from Jhumri Teliya,  Kodarma not returned – Complaint to the District Forum, Kodarma disallowed by it since no cause of action, wholly or partly, arose in it’s territorial jurisdiction – Impugned order confirmed by the State Commission on appeal – Revision petition – No illegality in the orders of the Forums below – Revision petition rejected.

We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and we find that there is nothing in the petition of complaint to satisfy us prima facie that cause of action of this case wholly or partly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this DCDRF, Bankura.

So, in view of the above observation of Hon’ble National Commission and in view of above facts and circumstances and discussion made above, we hold that cause of action of this case has not arisen wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; none of the O.Ps. are residing or carrying on business or have branch offices or personally works for gain within the local limits / territorial jurisdiction of this D.C.D.R.F., Bankura.  So we are inclined to hold that section 11 of C.P. Act 1986 is bar to entertain this case by this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case.                                                                                                  

Decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is not identical to the fact of this case.  So, said decisions, referred by Ld. Advocate for Complainant, are not applicable in this case.

In view of the above facts & circumstances and discussion made above we are inclined to hold that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain / try this Complaint.  As such we are not inclined to admit this Complaint / case.   Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.                                                                                                                             

Hence, it is

                                                                 Ordered

That this Complaint No.134 of 2015 be and same is hereby dismissed but without cost as this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.