M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite party in CC.No.10/2008, on the file of District Forum, Udhagamandalam, having suffered an adverse order, has come before this commission, for redressal.2. The complainant, with his family members, travelled in Air India 130, from London to Mumbai, on 5.8.2006, in executive clause. On their arrival at Mumbai airport, two baggage containing baby food, and other allied items were not delivered forthwith, for which the complainant lodged a complaint, about the missing baggge, and a property irregularity report was also given. The complainant was forced to halt with his family members, at Mumbai, and on 7.8.2006, one bag was delivered with damaged condition, leaving another baggage. On 7.8.2006 afternoon, the complainant left Mumbai to Coimbatore, and at Coimbatore also, the missed baggage was not delivered.3. On 11.8.2006, Chennai Airport authority, informed the complainant to collect the second baggage, at Coimbatore, instead of handing over at Ooty, thereby the complainant was compelled to incur expenses, harassement, torture, for which he should be adequately compensated. Because of the negligent act committed, demanding compensation, notice was issued, for which a reply was given, offering Rs.4000/- as full and final settlement, which was refused. Hence, the complainant is seeking a direction against the opposite parties, to pay a sum of RS.1,29,000/- as compensation.4. The opposite party, admitting the travel of the complainant, and the non-delivery of two baggage at Mumbai, as well as the baggage were later delivered, one at Mumbai, and another at Coimbatore, resisted the case, interalia contending, that the District Forum has no jurisdiction, that the claim is bared by limitation, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments also.5. The District Forum, concluding that there was negligence, and deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, as well as deciding jurisdiction in its favour, passed an order on 13.4.2009, directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering, with cost of Rs.2000/-, which is impugned in this appeal.6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party, urged before us that the order passed by the District Forum, is without jurisdiction, and therefore the same is liable to be set aside, in addition the claim is barred by limitation, drawing our attention to certain decision also. In order to appreciate this point, we have to read Sec.11, as well the complaint.7. Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act defines and delimits the jurisdiction of the District Forum, territorially, as well as pecuniarly. In this case, we are concerned about territorial jurisdiction. As per the cause title, the complainant was living, at the time of filing the case, at Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District, and the opposite party is having his business office at Mumbai, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. Sec.11(2) (a)(b), contemplates filing of a case, where the opposite parties reside, or carrying on business, having branch office. Sec.11 does not contemplate, conferring jurisdiction, where the complainant resides. Therefore, the consumer forum at Udhagamandalam, will not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. If at all, under Sec.11(c), a case may be filed, for that cause of action should have arisen wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the District of the District Forum, Udhagamandalam. In paragraph 9 of the complaint, it is said the defective service was given for consideration to the complainant at Udhagamandalam, which is factually incorrect. There is no assurance of any kind, from the opposite party, that they will deliver the goods, at the residence of the complainant, wherever he is, and they have delivered the goods viz. to the nearest airport, Coimbatore, where from the lost baggage was taken back, by the complainant. Even they offered to pay Rs.4000/-, probably covering the fraud cheue. In this context, we have to see the travel.8. Admittedly, the complainant travelled from London to Mumbai in the aircraft, operated by the opposite party, and from Mumbai-Coimbatore, by Jet Airways. The opposite party had undertaken to deliver the goods at Coimbatore, and accordingly delivered. Therefore, no part of cause of action, for the delayed delivery of baggage had arisen, within the jurisdiction of Nilgiris consumer forum. The learned counsel for the complainant also drew our attention to the decision of the National Commission in Gulf Airways Vs. Dr.S.G. Bhatt, wherein it is held, placing reliance upon the Sec.29 of the Carriage by Air Act, that the court having jurisdiction would be, where the carrier is ordinarily reside, or its principal place of business, and it is not the case in the present case, since admittedly the opposite party is not having their business place or resident place, at Ooty, as the case may be, which is incorporated in Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act also. As per the rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the written submission, we are of the considered opinion, that the consumer Forum at Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District, has no jurisdiction to decide the case. Despite, this point was raised by the opposite party, the District forum has erroneously assumed jurisdiction, on the basis of Sec.11(2)(C) which is not applicable to the present case. Hence the order passed by the District Forum, was without jurisdiction, liable to be set aside. Since we have decided, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case, question of deciding the quantum will not arise for consideration, and on this single ground, the order of the District Forum is to be set aside. We feel, instead of dismissing the complaint, the complaint should be returned to the complainant, for representation before the proper forum, having jurisdiction, to meet the ends of justice, if the complainant desires.9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.10/2010 dt.13.4.2009, and the complaint is ordered to be returned. The District Forum is directed to return the complaint, to the complainant for presentation before the proper forum, having jurisdiction, giving sufficient time for representation. There will be no order as to cost.;