State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Jayanta Biswas vs Masseren on 26 June, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/234/2017 ( Date of Filing : 23 Feb 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 14/02/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/53/2017 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Sri Jayanta Biswas S/o Mr. Jyotilal Biswas, SF-1, P-2, Sunrise Point, Action Area II C, New Town, Kolkata -700 157. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Masseren Show Room no. 19, Mosque Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore - 560 005. 2. G.S. Marketing & Associate 108/9, Manohar Pukur Road, Kalighat, Kolkata - 700 026, W.B. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Partha Sarathi Keshyapi, Ms. Sumana Jana, Advocate For the Respondent: Dated : 26 Jun 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 14-02-2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/53/2017, whereof the complaint case has been dismissed.
Appellant's case, in short, is that, the instant complaint case was filed over non-delivery of some materials/articles that he booked at a trade fair organized within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. Further case of the Appellant is that, due payment as made by him also took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum and the Respondent No. 2, who organized the trade fair, is having its office in Kolkata. Accordingly, in accordance with the Appellant, part of the cause of action being occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, there was no reason for the Forum below to reject the complaint case at the admission stage.
Be it mentioned here that for want of crystal clear service of notice upon the Respondents, paper publication was made to apprise them about the pendency of present Appeal before this Commission. However, despite such public notice, as none of the Respondents turned up to defend their case, the Appeal was heard ex parte.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant contended that the Appellant booked the ordered articles at a trade fair organized in Kolkata. Further, due payment was also made from here. Lastly, the organizer of the trade fair is having its office in Kolkata. For all these reasons, according to the Ld. Advocate, the instant complaint was very much maintainable.
Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as under:
"A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the averment advanced from the side of the Appellant, as also the aforementioned statutory provision regarding the jurisdiction of a District Forum to entertain a case, it does seem to us that there was no infirmity with the impugned order.
Although the Appellant arrayed the Respondent No. 2 into the case, ostensibly in order to invoke jurisdiction, it seems the said firm merely organized the trade fair. It was neither the franchise nor the trade partner/business associate of the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, its footprint in Kolkata, in our considered opinion, got no bearing in the complaint case.
Undisputedly, the Respondent No. 1 does not actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business; nor does it have any branch office or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. On the other hand, it is the settled position of law that mere payment of money does not give rise to any cause of action, even partly. Thus, from whatever angle we look at it, the complaint case was rightly rejected by the Ld. District Forum.
The Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondents. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. No order as to cost. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER