The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of complainant to impeach the  order being Order No.26 dated 05.06.2018 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (in short, ‘Ld. District Forum’) in MA/74/2018 arising out of Consumer Complaint No.646/2015 whereby the application filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 9 challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground of territorial jurisdiction was allowed.

            The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OPs; primarily on the part of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.) on account of premature death of her mother Parul Samanta (Sarkar) owing to electrocution from a snapped wire which was broken due to fallen bamboos at the time of heavy storm on 02.06.2014 at Village Bargeria under Garbeta P.S. within the District of Paschim Medinipur.  Therefore, the complaint under Section 12 was lodged before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for a direction upon OP Nos. 1 to 9 to make payment a sum of Rs.10,72,096/- on account of total medical expenditure incurred for treatment of the deceased, compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc.

            After entered appearance, the OP Nos. 1 to 9 filed one application challenging the maintainability of the proceeding.  By order No.09 dated 08.06.2016 the Ld. District Forum passed an order observing that the complaint is maintainable before the Ld. District Forum and thereby rejected the application filed by OP Nos. 1 to 9 challenging the maintainability of the proceeding.  Challenging the said order, the OP Nos. 1 to 9 did not prefer any appeal and therefore, the said order attained finality.

            Subsequently, the parties led evidence and the evidence of the parties was concluded on 15.06.2017.  Thereafter, the parties have also filed brief notes of argument in respect of their own cases.  When the record was slated for final hearing, at that juncture, the application being MA/74/2018 has been filed by OP Nos. 1 to 9 raising the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the complaint.

            After hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the application filed by OP Nos. 1 to 9 being MA/74/2019.  To impeach the said order, the complaint has come up in this Commission with the instant appeal.

            Ms. Olivia Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant  has submitted that when the evidence of the parties are already over and the matter was otherwise ready for final hearing, the Ld. District Forum should not have entertained the application.  She has drawn my attention to the letter dated 06.06.2014 being office Order No.2 issued by W.B.S.E.D.C.L.  and submitted that the cause of action has partly arisen within the District of North 24 Parganas and as such the Ld. District Forum has committed a grave error in passing the order impugned.  She has fairly submitted that when the matter is ready for final hearing and further OP No.1 to 9 challenging the Order No.9 dated 08.06.2016 did not move in any higher Forum, the order passed by the Ld. District Forum should be set aside.

            Mr. Suvendu Das, Ld. Advocate for OP Nos. 1 to 9, on the other hand, could not refute the contention by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant as they did not move any higher authority challenging the Order No.09 dated 08.06.2016.    

            The Ld. Advocates appearing for the other respondents did not argue regarding the merits of the case. 

            Mr. Abhik Kumar Das, Ld. Advocate for respondent No.13 has made a prayer to exonerate the respondent No.13 (OP No.13) from this case but the said prayer cannot be entertained because the respondent No.13 had an opportunity to move the higher authority when the complaint was admitted against respondent No.13 although he was not the service provider. 

            After giving due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates for the parties and keeping in view the cardinal principles of law that the point as to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction should be taken at earliest possible opportunity or in the nascent phase of the proceeding, I think the appeal being meritorious one should be allowed.

            For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to cost.

            The Order No.26 dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum in MA/74/2018 stems from CC/646/2015 is hereby set aside.

            The case is remitted on remand with a direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 01.08.2019.

            The Ld. District Forum is requested to fix a date for final hearing and to proceed to dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.