Order No. 28                      Dated-    11.04.2022

            The facts as stated in the complaint are that the OP is engaged in the business of development of land.  Complainant booked a plot being No. B-8 measuring about  02 cottahs 0 chittak 0 sq. ft. comprised in Dag No. 721, under Khatian No. 298, J. L.  No 17, PS Cossipore in  a project “Tapaban” at a total consideration of Rs.  5,50,000/- which includes development of land and infrastructures. An Agreement for Allotment dated 24.08.2009 had executed between the parties. Complainant alleges to have paid entire consideration amount to the OP against money receipts. Complainant allege further that the OP has miserably failed to develop the above mentioned project “Tapoban” in spite of receiving entire consideration amount. In view of gross deficiency in service as committed by the OP, complainant vides legal notice dated 02.02.2018 demanded refund of entire monies paid along with interest. Alleging gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the OP, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint.

            The OP has filed its WV and also denied the contents of the complaint, further stating that the Agreement for Allotment dated 24.08.2009 is unstamped  and it cannot be looked into as evidence for a collateral purpose under Section  35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The OP further stated that the office of the OP falls within PS Gariahat which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Thus, this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, OP has sought dismissal of the consumer case with cost.

             Complainant and OP filed their evidence supported by affidavit along with photocopies of documents which they have relied in respect of their case.

            We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the parties and perused the material available on record.

            The OP has challenged the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case on the ground that presently office of the OP shifted to 18/44 Ballygunge Place (East), Kolkata-700019 which falls within Gariahat PS. Thus, this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.

            It is true that the complainant has mentioned in the cause title of the consumer complaint that the office of the OP presently shifted to  18/44, Ballygunge Place (East), Kolkata-700019. Complainant also mentioned that the shifted office premises of OP falls at Ballygunge PS.

            On bare perusal of Form No. INC-22 (Notice of change of situation of registered office) issued by the Registrar of Companies, it appears to us that  18/44, Ballygunge Place (East), Kolkata-700019 falls under Gariahat PS. Thus, cause of action is arisen within the jurisdiction of Gariahat PS.

            OP is actually carrying on business from its registered office situated within the jurisdiction of Gariahat PS. DCDRC Unit III, Kolkata has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide complaint. Thus, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.

            In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the consider opinion that the points of deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice are not required to be discussed  in view of territorial jurisdiction.

            Consumer Petition be returned to the complainant or his recorded Advocate for presentation to the DCDRC Unit III Kolkata as this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint case.

On the prayer of the complainant, parties are directed to appear before the DCDRC, Unit III, Kolkata on 12.05.2022.