None is present either for the appellant or the Respondent. We have perused the impugned order passed by District Forum, Buldhana in CC No 13/09. We are finding that the complainant who is appellant herein had filed consumer complaint against Tapi Sahkari Patpedhi, Chopda, District Jalgaon. Case of the complainant was that he had kept two deposits of Rs.50,000/- each in Opposite Party Credit Society on 23.6.2006 and the interest payable thereon was @11.5% p.a. since he was a senior citizen. He used to get Rs.475/- as interest from June,2006 on each deposit, but in 2007, he did not receive interest though the deposits were to mature on 23.10.2009. So he approached the Opposite Party Credit Society and sought premature return of deposit which was avoided and hence he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of Rs.1 lac with interest thereon besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost.

            Opposite Party Credit Society filed written statement and pleaded that they were running credit society properly, but some societies in Jalgaon and Dhule districts were facing financial constraints and, therefore, every depositor started asking for premature return of their deposits and hence liquidity of the society came to an end. Looking to this, the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra, Pune had imposed some restrictions on refund of deposits which were applicable to the Opposite Party Credit Society. Opposite Party Credit Society pleaded that they were ready to pay Rs.950/- per month as interest to the complainant and even today they are ready to pay interest at the same rate and after maturity of the deposits they are ready to refund the money and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.

            The forum below, after considering record and affidavits held that the complainant had filed consumer complaint for premature refund of deposits, however, the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra, Pune had imposed some restrictions on refund of deposits w.e.f. 1.11.2007 under Section 79 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,1960, vide their letter which was applicable to the Opposite Party Credit Society. The same authority issued further orders also. Looking to these orders passed by Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra, Pune , the forum below was of the view that the opposite party society had not committed any deficiency in service and, therefore, it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the complainant has filed this appeal.

            We, are, however, finding that the forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to dismiss it since the deposits were kept by the appellant in Tapi Sahkari Patpedhi, Chopda, District Jalgaon. In the complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that in Buldhana district the said society has any branch office or any cause of action arose there. Hence, the Buldhana Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and mere residence of the complainant in Buldhana district does not give territorial jurisdiction to Buldhana Forum U/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, because under this section, only the Forum within whose jurisdiction the Opposite Party resides or carries on business or works for gain or has a branch office has the territorial jurisdiction. As such, Buldana Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and hence the order passed by the said forum is improper and illegal and is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the complaint is liable to be remitted back to Buldana Forum where complainant can seek permission to withdraw the complaint for filing it before the Jalgaon Forum.

Hence the order…

                                                            ORDER