Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member

Complainant Suman Kumar Mandal has filed this case u/s 35 of CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not attending to his complaint regarding defect in mobile set and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile set and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 25, 000/-.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant purchased two mobile sets from the shop of OP No. 1 on 07.07.2019 for cost of Rs. 29,990/-. After purchase of the sets, he returned back to his native place in the state of Bihar  where after opening of the packet, he noticed that the sound of the mobile set is not clear which was the same at the time of purchase from the shop. The complainant instructed his brother who is at Kolkata to go to the shop and inform regarding the problems in the set. The OP No. 1 suggested that the problem will be rectified after updating of the software in the mobile. Even after updating the software, the problems continued and when the matter was reported to OP No. 1, he advised the complainant’s brother to come within a month from the date of purchase and they can replace the mobile. On 24.07.2019, when the complainant reached the shop of OP No. 1, he suggested him to go to the authorized center i.e. OP No. 2 to solve the problem and it is not his duty to replace or repair the mobile set. On the same day, he went to OP No. 3 where the Engineer checked the mobile and stated that there is a gap on speaker side of the mobile. So, it is a manufacturing defect and it should have been replaced with a new one within 14 days from the date of purchase. The complainant was there on the 16^th day from the date of purchase of the mobile. The OP No. 3 received the mobile, prepared a job sheet and asked the complainant to sign on it and issued a receipt in token of his receipt of mobile set. The complainant was continuously in conversation with the Customer Care Department regarding manufacturing of the mobile. But, the Customer Care personnel could not provide him with relief except assurances. Finally on 23.08.2019, he received a call from the Customer Care section and was asked whether he is interested in taking back the repaired mobile. The complainant insisted on the replacement of the mobile as it was having manufacturing defect and the mobile is with OP No. 3 till date. He has suffered a lot being in frequent touch with the OP No. 2 through their Customer Care Service and running from Nuapada to Kolkata twice for this purpose only. As the OPs did not replace the defective set, he filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs discussed in preceding paragraph.

2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 1 appeared through his Advocate and filed a written version. In his written version, the OP No. 1 stated that the District forum at Nuapada lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The OP No. 1 admitted regarding the sale of the mobile to the complainant from his show room at Kolkata. The OP No. 1 pleaded that none came to the store of OP No. 1 to intimate regarding the defect as averred in the complaint. He is only the selling dealer and the post-purchase defect removal services are offered by the manufacturer through their service franchise. Since he is the seller, he has no role to play in the matter and prayed for dismissal of the case.

3.           The OP No. 2 in his written statement stated that the mobile set was purchased on 07.07.2019 from OP No. 1 which is admittedly located at Kolkata, West Bengal. In such fact and circumstance, the complaint is not maintainable at Nuapada District, Odisha. The manufacturer or the dealer does not have any sale office and branch office at Nuapada. The product is claimed to have been purchased from Kolkata. The service center of the company is an independent entity runs its business in its own name and style and is authorized to provide after sale service. Manufacturer has provided service centre for quick and easy access of service. The complaint is not supported by the expert opinion. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with cost.

4.           The OP No. 3 in his written statement has also challenged the territorial jurisdiction and has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service in his part in carrying out the repairs and to pray for dismissal of the case with costs.

5.           Since all the OPs have raised the issue of jurisdiction, it is to be decided first. The complainant in his complaint petition has stated that he purchased the product from Kolkota and noticed the defects in the mobile set at the time of purchase in the show room of OP No.1 and on the next day in his village in the state of Bihar. From the cause title of the complaint petition, it is clearly revealed that all the except OP No. 4 resided in the state of West Bengal. The complainant has not explained the link of OP No. 4 with the other office. The cause of action for filing the dispute first arose at Kolkata and the next in the state of Bihar in his own village. So, the cause of action neither arose in the state of Odisha either in full or in part. Therefore in our considered view, since no part of the cause of action arose within the  district of Nuapada in the state of Odisha, the case is not maintainable before this forum and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is accordingly dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant is at liberty to file the case in proper forum if he so desires. Parties to bear their own cost.