C.C. Pant, Member

1. This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint No. 1 of 2003.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a machinery on 10.1.2002 from Sargodha Sales Corporation, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana for sum of Rs. 1,47,680 after taking loan from the opposite party No. 2-Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and other machines worth Rs. 2,59,968 were purchased on 10.1.2002 from Amico Enterprises, Nirankari Street No. 1, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. The said machines were insured with the opposite party No. 1 - National Insurance Company Limited, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. The said machines were booked through opposite party No. 3 - Rama Krishna Transport Company, Ludhiana on 10.1.2002 through Bilty No. 1239 for being transported from Ludhiana to Haridwar, but the said machines were not delivered at the factory premises of the complainant. The complainant lodged an FIR with the police. The complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company and wrote several letters, but the claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3. The Insurance Company filed written statement before the District Forum and mainly pleaded that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. It was also pleaded that on investigation, it was found that there has been embezzlement/fraud in the matter and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The opposite party No. 2 financier also filed written statement before the District Forum and stated that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaintvide impugned order dated 24.7.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant -complainant and respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company and also perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

6. It is an admitted fact that the machines were purchased by the complainant from the two firms situated at Ludhiana and the insurance was also done at Ludhiana. In the investigation carried out at the instance of the Insurance Company, it was revealed that on the said date, the truck in question did not go to Punjab and that the owner of the truck was not having a permit to ply the truck within the territory of State of Punjab and on the said date, the truck in question had gone to Raxol. The complainant has not been able to show as to how the District Forum, Haridwar has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter and as to how the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint has arisen in his favour at Haridwar. No Branch Office of National Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Haridwar and, therefore, the District Forum was perfectly justified in holding at it has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Insurance Company has produced ample evidence on record to show that the complainant has himself misrepresented the facts so as to earn wrongful gain from the Insurance Company and as per the evidence on record, the complainant was in the truck and that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. Whatsoever may be, since the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matte

r, the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar and the District Forum has rightly dismissed the same. 8. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 9. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.