The record is taken up for admission hearing. Learned advocate from the side of the complainant describe the fact of the case.

According to the Section 34 (2) of THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 the territorial Jurisdiction of District Commission.—

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission 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, ordinarily 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

In the instant case, it is evident that

(a) The Agreement was executed between the parties at Kolkata, as it bears the stamp of Kolkata office of the opposite party. Not only this, even all the payment receipts, bear the first address thereon of M/S. BUILDERS POINT, Builder and developer, 30A,Biren Roy Road(West) P.S.Parnasree,Natunpara,Kolkata-700061.

(b) Cause of action arrows between the parties not within the jurisdiction of this commission. The alleged property is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.

(c) The complainant is presently residing at under P.S. - NJP, which is under the jurisdiction of this commission. But, the permanent address of the complainant is not under the jurisdiction of this commission.  (District Darjeeling)

In a very recent judgment The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by a Ph.D. candidate against Aligarh Muslim University explaining that jurisdiction is not determined by the convenience of geographical proximity that suits the petitioner.  Honorable Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Jurisdiction is governed by law and not geographical limits and necessarily the jurisdiction will fall, where the cause of action has arisen, not by the convenience of geographical proximity that suits the petitioner”.

To conclude, this commission observes that as per judicial precedents, that if only complainant is presently residing at under P.S. - NJP, which is under the jurisdiction of this commission within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may refuse to entertain the case if it is of the opinion that it is not the commission convenience.

This commission is thus of the view that the complainant, must take her grievances against the said opposite parties to the appropriate forum in the State.

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed at the time of admission hearing along with other applications (if any) solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

The complainant would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of jurisdiction for redressal of his  grievance, in accordance with law.

The admission of the case is stands rejected.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the complainant free of cost.