Petitioner which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed this revision petition against the interim order by the fora below wherein the objection, that the District Forum in Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint as neither the cause of action nor a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, was overruled. Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 135 the orders passed by the fora below are unsustainable. In the said case the fire took place in the godown of the complainant at Ambala, Haryana and the complaint was filed in the Consumer Forum of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The State Commission had held that the Consumer Forum of Union Territory, Chandigarh had the jurisdiction. National Commission reversed the order of the State Commission and held that the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. Supreme Court upholding the view of this Commission held as under:- oreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company had a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complainant could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ranch officein the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary ( as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. (Emphasis supplied) In view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties complaint No. 903 of 2003 filed by the respondents/complainants is ordered to be transferred from Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, Delhi to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, Delhi is directed to transfer the complete record of complaint case No. 903 of 2003 to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gautam Budh Nagar, UP immediately. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gautam Budh Nagar, UP on 24.05.2011. Since the complaint was filed in the year 2003 we direct the transferee District Forum to dispose of the complaint within six months from the date of appearance.