SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum as a preliminary issue. According to the petitioner/opp.p-arty the complainant herein is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2[1][d] of the Consumer Protection Act 1996 and that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Respondent/complainant filed objection contending that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and that he is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2[1][d] of the Consumer Protection Act. 1096. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint? 2. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not? POINTS: Heard both sides. The main contention of the Petitioner/opp.party is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is argued that the opp.party herein is not actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or has any branch office within the jurisdiction of this forum and that the cause of action has also not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Admittedly the opp.party has no branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Similarly it is also an admitted fact that the opp.party is not residing or carries on business or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The definite case of the opp.party/petitioner is that no cause of action has also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the petitioner/opp.party is doing the audit of the accounts of M/s. Sankar and Moorthy at Thiruvananthapuram and the report is prepared and presented at Thiruvananthapuram which is not disputed by the complainant. The case of the complainant/Respondent is that the cause of action has arisen at the office of the Addl.. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam Range, Kollam when he was denied vital information about the audit report submitted by the petitioner/opp.party [para 6 of the complaint] It is stated in para 6, of the complaint “the cause of action for this complaint arose on 23.12.2008 at the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam Range, Kollam. Based on the false Audit Report submitted by Mr. Gnana Sekhar the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam has denied me vital information’s about my partnership firm, has caused Assessment of excess Inc9ome Tax etc.” The denial of vital information by the Income Tax Commissioner is no way connected to the preparation of audit report by the opp.party at Thiruvananthapuram. The dispute herein is with regard to the correctness of the report prepared by the opp.party and even the complaint has no case that any part of the report is prepared within the jurisdiction of this Forum. None of the ingredients referred to in Sec. II 2 [a] to [c] of the Consumer Protection Act is available to the complainant herein to file this complaint before this Forum. In these circumstances we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Since we have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint we are not adjudicating the aspectf as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. Points found accordingly. In the result the IA is allowed. Return the complaint to the complainant for filing the same before the proper Forum within one month. Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 | 
