Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The caseof the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a Maruti Alto car by availing loan of Rs.2,31,650/-  from the OP. Complainant  stated to have deposited Rs.59,000/- towards down payment. He used the vehicle after payment of instalments.  While the vehicle was being used by the complainant on 26.7.2012  the complainant received a notice from the OP that   the OP has filled up the blank chequementioning the amount Rs.6,683/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. Then the complainant contacted his Banker to stop payment of the cheque. Since the instalment amount was not paid, the OP repossessed the vehicle. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the learned District Forum.

4.      OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the complaint against the OP. It is also alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is also averred that there is arbitration clause and the complainant can seek  redressalfrom the Arbitrator if reference is made. However, he also challenged the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forumpassed the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

            The complaint is allowed on contest. The opp.party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.91,314/- (Rupees Ninety one thousand three hundred fourteen) only paid by the complainant towards Margin Money, Registration charges, EMI including Insurance with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund. Besides, the opp.party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only along with cost of the litigation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the complainant within  period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and there is no merit in the case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellantand perused the DFR including impugned order.

8.      It appears from the impugned order that the complainant has made the sole OP who resides at Chennai. The local Branch office of the OP has not been made a party. Therefore, the complaint is bad u/s 11  of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is without jurisdiction. We are not going through themerit of the case since the consumer complaint is not maintainable.So the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.