The State Commission had disposed of the appeal on the ground that the District Forum, Sonepat did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the case since there was no cause of action in Sonepat. Learned counsels for both the parties are present today. 2. On perusal of the order of the State Commission, it is noted that the State Commission had observed that the complainant had insured his Tata truck from the opposite party No.1-Insurance Company at New Delhi and therefore, the District Forum, Sonepat had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 3. From perusal of the file, we note that the truck was in fact insured at Sonepat, where the insurance company has a Branch Office. Therefore, as per provisions under Section 11(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum, Sonepat had the jurisdiction to entertain this case and the State Commission erred in reaching a conclusion to the contrary. 4. In view of the above facts, the case is remanded back to the State Commission to hear it afresh on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.08.2013. | 
