11 days delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.10 passed by the UT Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint no. 2/10 dismissing the complaint at the threshold, the complainant has filed the present ..2.. appeal. The complaint has been primarily dismissed on the ground that the State Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by the complainant. Besides, in the body of the impugned order, the State Commission has also examined the question of locus-standi of the complainant to lay an insurance claim and then file the complaint on the ground that the complainant neither had taken the insurance policy nor was the beneficiary and, therefore, was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant and have considered his submissions. He reiterates his submission that that the Regional Office of the opposite party insurance company exists in Chandigarh and, therefore, the State Commission at Chandigarh has the requisite territorial jurisdiction. We do not see any merit in this contention because of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 20.10.09. However, we may observe that the State Commission having come to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, should not have ventured to ..3.. examine the merit of the complaint either in regard to the locus-standi of the complainant to file the complaint or his status whether he was a ‘consumer’ or not. After returning the finding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the State Commission ought to have ordered the return of the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Tribunal as the complainant could have been advised. The order passed by the State Commission is required to be modified/clarified to that extent. 3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the finding of the State Commission so far as it has dismissed the complaint in limine is hereby set aside. However, the finding of the State Commission in regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is upheld. We direct the State Commission to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Tribunal. We grant 30 days’ time to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum/Tribunal from the date of receipt of complaint.