Feedback

Territorial Jurisdiction Case: Purba Medinipur Consumer Forum Dismisses Complaint Against Maxgrow Biotech

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Purba Medinipur recently dismissed a complaint filed by Sri Alok Kumar Saha, a stockist, against Maxgrow Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and others, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The case revolved around alleged financial discrepancies, inferior product quality, and the failure of the opposite parties (OPs) to honor their commitments.

Case Background

The complainant, Sri Alok Kumar Saha, a resident of Purba Medinipur, alleged that he paid ₹3,35,000 to Maxgrow Biotech Pvt. Ltd., headquartered in Ludhiana, Punjab, for purchasing biotech products. However, he received products worth only ₹1,50,000, and these were of inferior quality, rendering them unsellable. Additionally, the complainant claimed that he was promised the status of a super stockist, but instead, he was made a general stockist, which was against their agreement.

Relief Sought by the Complainant

Sri Saha demanded:

1. Refund of the excess amount of ₹1,85,000 (₹3,35,000 - ₹1,50,000).
2. Compensation for the alleged deficiency in service and financial loss caused by the OPs.

Opposite Party's Stand

The opposite parties did not respond to the complainant’s repeated requests to resolve the issue, prompting him to approach the consumer forum for redressal.

Legal Issue: Territorial Jurisdiction

The forum deliberated on whether it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, governs the territorial jurisdiction of district forums. It states that a complaint may be instituted in a forum where:

• The opposite party resides or conducts business, or
• The cause of action arises.

The forum found:

1. Maxgrow Biotech Pvt. Ltd.’s office is located in Punjab.
2. One of the opposite parties resides in Paschim Medinipur (outside the jurisdiction of Purba Medinipur).
3. The complainant failed to provide documentary evidence to prove that the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Purba Medinipur.

Forum's Findings

After reviewing the case records and hearing the complainant's counsel, the forum determined that:

• The case was filed in an inappropriate jurisdiction.
• No substantial evidence was provided to establish that the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Purba Medinipur.

Decision

The forum ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and dismissed the complaint. The complainant was advised to approach the appropriate forum.

Order Summary:

1. The complaint was rejected due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The complainant was directed to seek redressal before the proper forum.

Implications of the Judgment

This case serves as a reminder that consumers must carefully assess the jurisdiction of a consumer forum before filing a complaint. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, mandates that complaints should be lodged where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of action arises. Failing to adhere to these provisions can result in dismissal, as seen in this case.