ANUPAM BHATTACHARJEE Vs. SIBSANKAR BANDHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 22B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Complainant, seeking transfer of Complaint No. CC-66/2011, filed by him against the Respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in terms of the leave granted by this Commission vide order dated 20.05.2011 in RP No. 1406 of 2007.

(2.) The case has a little chequered history and therefore, in order to appreciate the prayer for transfer, a brief background in which the complaint came to be filed at Kolkata would be useful. According to the Applicant he had contacted the Respondent, a practicing Advocate, over the telephone, asking him to file a complaint on his behalf against Calcutta Medical Research Institute (for short "CMRI") and some other persons, in the State Commission, at Kolkata, for deficiency in service on their part. He claims to have sent some documents to the Respondent on 15.05.2011 alongwith a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards his fees. As the Respondent did not take any action in this regard, because of having been influenced by CMRI, he had to file a complaint against CMRI in the District Forum at Agartala. The complaint was however, dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, his enquiries revealed that a complaint on his behalf was in fact filed by the Respondent but was dismissed by the State Commission for non-prosecution. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Respondent in not pursuing the complaint, sometime in the year 2003, the Applicant filed a complaint against him at Agartala, claiming compensation of Rs. 19,30,000/-. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 30.03.2006, with a direction to the Respondent to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The order was challenged by the Respondent in the State Commission, Tripura. The Appeal was allowed and it was held by the State Commission that no part of cause of action had arisen at Agartala and therefore, District Forum at Agartala (West Tripura) did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The order of the State Commission was affirmed by this Commission vide order dated 20.05.2011. The Commission came to the conclusion that merely because the Applicant had contacted the Respondent, based at Kolkata, over the phone from Agartala, it would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the District Forum, Agartala as no contract had been entered into between the parties at that place. However, liberty was granted to the Applicant to file a fresh complaint before a Forum having territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Applicant filed a complaint at Kolkata, which is now sought to be transferred to Agartala.

(3.) We have heard the Applicant, who appears in person, and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent.