JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. 2. The State Commission has already stated that the complaint was filed in Alwar, Rajasthan and the theft was committed at -2- Ferozepur, Jhirka in Haryana. The State Commission took the view as under: “2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the truck was indisputably taken in the State of Chhattisgarh and accident took place in the State of Haryana near Firozpur Jhirka. FIR was lodged with the police station Firozpur Jhirka. The learned DCF has assumed its jurisdiction on the ground that the branch office of the appellant Insurance Company is situated at Alwar. On this ground it rejected the contention of the appellant company and accepted the claim. 3. We are unable to uphold the view of the learned DCF. We are of the opinion that the learned DCF had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint in view of the principle laid down in M/s Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2009 INSC 1611) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No cause of action had arisen in the State of Rajasthan or at Alwar. -3- Merely because the branch office of the Insurance Company is situated at Alwar does not give the learned DCF Alwar the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant had relieD on I (2003) CPJ 347 Mst. Jaikaur Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager LIC (J & K. State Commission) and I (2007) CPJ 365 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neelam Singh and Ors. (Chhattisgarh State Commission). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical has held that the expression “Branch Office” in the amended sec. 17(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act shall mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. We cannot accept the contention of the complainant that since the insurance company has a branch office at Alwar, the complaint can be presented at Alwar.” -4- 3. The order of State Commission cannot be faulted but liberty is given to the petitioner to file complaint before the concerned District Forum. Nothing will bar the petitioner to file the complaint before the District Forum where the cause of action has arisen. The complaint be returned to him. He can file it before the concerned District Forum and the time spent before the consumer fora can be excluded in view of law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. 4. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
