Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—III in Complaint Case no.CC/461/2017 dismissing the complaint on the ground of non-maintainability.

Briefly put, the facts relevant for disposal of the instant Appeal were that the Appellant/Complainant purchased one laptop at a cost of Rs. 23,250/- from the Respondent/OP of 50—B, Sarat Bose Road, P.S Bhawanipur, Kolkata—700020 on 30.01.2017. The laptop allegedly started giving problem from July, 2017 as the same was provided with a pirated version of operating system with its PC not working properly.

The Appellant/Complainant, as alleged, was assured of supplying one Mouse, pricing Rs. 150/-, free of cost. Said Mouse being out of stock at the time of purchase, remained due with notings to that effect recorded on the body of the purchase bill. In the same month, a leakage was developed at the corner of the laptop screen which resulted in a shade in almost 80% of the screen. The Complainant informed the OP over telephone about the defect developed in the laptop with a request for immediate repair of the same. Apart from that a complaint in the customer care of the Respondent/OP was also docketed. The complaint was responded to with no positive action from the Respondent/OP.

The Appellant/Complainant, being aggrieved with the above mentioned deficiency in rendering services, filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—III with the prayer for replacement of the defective laptop with compensation and cost of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively.

Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant described in brief the incident and submitted that the defect developed in the subject laptop within the period of warranty but, the Respondent/OP did not take any step to repair the defect even after docketing the formal complaint in its helpline.

Ld. Advocate submitted further that the Complaint Case filed with the Ld. District Forum was heard and after a lapse of about one year, the same was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as the complaint was filed with Kolkata Unit—III and not within Kolkata Unit—II under whose jurisdiction the showroom of the Respondent/OP was located.

Referring to para 11(2)(c) of the C.P Act, 1986, the Ld. Advocate continued very much having the territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action had originated, in part, from his residence where the defect of the laptop was detected and wherefrom the complaint was first docketed in the helpline of the Respondent/OP. As continued further, the residence of the Appellant/Complainant, being located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the dismissal order prima facie appeared to be not supported with tenable reason.

As submitted, the lack of territorial jurisdiction which led to the rejection of the Complaint Case was never mentioned in the WV filed by the Respondent/OP in the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum.

The Ld. Advocate concluded his submission praying for allowing the Appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP submitted, per contra, that the Appellant/Complainant was allowed liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. The Appellant/Complainant, as submitted further, might have approached the appropriate Forum based on that liberty given to him.

Moreover, as he continued, the defects in the laptop appeared prima facie to be a manufacturing one when the manufacturer was not made a party to the complaint. From that angle too, as continued further, the complaint appeared to be not maintainable as it had acquired the demerits of non-joinder of party.

The Ld. Advocate, in view of the above context, prayed for the Appeal to be remanded for hearing the case afresh and disposed of the same on merit.

Perused the papers on record. Considered submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. It appeared that the Appellant/Complainant claimed a territorial jurisdiction on the ground that he had identified the defect in the said laptop at his residence from where he had docketed the complaint in the helpline of the Respondent/OP. It revealed that the purchase of the subject laptop was made from the showroom at Bhawanipur, Kolkata paying the cost of the item on the spot. From that aspect, it appeared that the identity of the Appellant/Complainant was established as Consumer under the territorial jurisdiction of the Kolkata Unit—III.

As the payment was not made electronically from the residence of the Appellant/Complainant, the territorial jurisdiction claimed by him did not appear to have been supported by a tenable logic.

Further, the Appellant/Complainant was awarded liberty in the impugned order to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum. It would have been better had he acted in the lines of the directions in the impugned order instead of filing the instant Appeal.

In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that there was no material irregularity in the impugned order and accordingly, it does not deserve any intervention from this end.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.