Appellant, which is a consumer rights organization, filed complaint on behalf of Complainants No.2-16 against respondent tour operator making allegations that the complainants No.2-16 were not given proper facilities while on tour.  Complainants 2-5 are residents of Ahmedabad whereas complainants 6-16 are residents of Mumbai.  State Commission allowed the complaint filed on behalf of complainants 2-5 and directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- to complainants 2-5 collectively along with interest @ 9% with effect from 16.1.2007 till the date of payment.  Complaint filed on behalf of complainants 6-16 was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.  It was held that since complainants 6-16 were residents of Mumbai, complaint filed with State Commission, Ahmedabad was not maintainable. 

Appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for complainants 2-5 and quashing of the order of the State Commission in dismissing the complaint filed on behalf of complainants 6-16 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission.  Admittedly, complainants 6-16 were residents of Mumbai.  Complainant filed on their behalf at Ahmedabad, under the circumstances, was not maintainable.  We also do not find any plausible ground to increase the amount of compensation awarded to complainants 2-5.  In view of the reasons stated by the State Commission in its order, compensation awarded to complainants 2-5 is sufficient and adequate. 

No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.

However, liberty is reserved with complainants 6-16 to seek redressal of their grievances in an appropriate Forum and, in case, any complaint is filed by complainants 6-16 or on their behalf within 60 days from today, the same be entertained without any objection to limitation.