ORDER

Under section 12(3) of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

             The Complainant has sought order against the Opposite party/Opposite parties for making payment of Rs.11 lakhs towards the expenses incurred by it, along with total damages of Rs.8 lakhs, alleging the defective services by the Opposite party in their offered business opportunity.

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that in continuation of his existed business, in providing the mobile payment platform, started from July 2012 in Bengaluru, in response to previous emails of the Opposite party, with an intention to expand its business, believing the assurances, it started to campaign and paid Rs.1 lakh through cheque initially and thereafter the Opposite party started harassing him, threatening to initiate legal action by filing cases in Delhi and also issued the legal notice stating its intention to invoke the provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and it was replied properly. The invested amount of Rs.5 lakhs and incurred expenses of Rs.6 lakhs, towards the recruitment of the staff, were lost by the act of the Opposite party and hence it becomes the defective service. The Complainant is in K.R.Puram, Police Station jurisdiction and hence it requires to take cognizance of the complaint, to proceed against the Opposite parties, for which they produce the documentary evidence during the stage of evidence.

          3. The Complainant has relied on five documents namely the authority letter to file this complaint, email transactions of the Opposite party, copy of the cheque dtd.20.02.16, legal notice by the Opposite party and its reply to it.

4. In the legal notice/doc.D, the Opposite party has alleged against the Complainant its liability to pay admitted outstanding amount of Rs.14,52,738/-, in connection with the previous transactions held in the month of March and April 2015, even after the payment of Rs.1,29,000/- by the Complainant. The Opposite party has also alleged the complete violation of the terms & conditions of the agreement of their business which made them to invoke Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 5 of Insolvency and bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

          5. In doc.E, the Complainant has disputed the statement regarding number of transactions held between them and the adjustment of the amount denying the allegations and its liability even by denying the formation of contract and agreement.

          6. In doc.B/email transactions, there is mentioning about the date of discussion of their business in June 2015. Doc.C is the copy of the cheque issued by the Complainant to the Opposite party for Rs.1 lakh on 20.01.16.

          7. The contents of all these documents clearly show that the entire transactions relating to business carried out by both the parties being the companies, becomes commercial one. At the end of para no.6, the Complainant has stated that he has got the number of documents which are to be produced at the evidence stage and has not produced alongwith this complaint and thereby has not placed all available materials to convince the forum at this stage. The Opposite party is mentioned as situated at Haryana and New Delhi and they were not shown as the party no.1 & 2 and the said both addresses are outside the jurisdiction of this state.

          8. The legal notice of the Opposite party shows the existence of the terms & conditions between the parties and the Complainant has denied it and the same has to be proved before deciding any consumer dispute if arises. There is no documentary evidence to show that the cause of action arose at Bengaluru and thereby the addresses of the Opposite party/Opposite parties show that it is not within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru and on this point also, the Complainant has not placed any materials and thereby has failed to prove the territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru Forum. Hence it is clear that on the point of territorial jurisdiction and exclusion of the complainant from the definition of consumer wide provisions of CP Act, this complaint becomes liable to get rejection order. Accordingly following order is passed.   

ORDER

The CC.No.429/2017 filed by the Complainant is rejected u/s 12(3) of CP Act. No order as to costs.         

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 13^th September 2017).