State Commission has dismissed the complaint on 3 grounds : (i) that there was a delay of 133 days over and above the statutory period of 2 years provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act to file the complaint from the date of arising of the cause of action; that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained.  Application for condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently the complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation; (ii) that the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh did not have the territorial jurisdiction.  The cause of action arose in Mohali which is an adjoining city in the State of Punjab; (iii) that the allegations made in the complaint regarding forgery and fraud by the appellant, could not be decided in a summary manner by the consumer court.

        Even if I wish to condone the delay, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the other two grounds, i.e., on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and that the dispute raised by the appellant could not be decided in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act.

        At this stage, counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the State Commission is right in holding that the State Commission U.T. Chandigarh did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

Dismissed.  Since the appellant was pursuing her remedy in a wrong Forum, liberty is reserved with the appellant to seek redressal of her grievances in civil court with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.