ORDER Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup, President: The present complaint has been filed on the stated facts that the complainant is a retired defence personnel. During his service tenure in the army, he took an insurance policy from 31.3.1998 and valid upto 30.3.2008 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite party i.e., Oriental Insurance Company. Since he was discharged from defence services on medical ground after assessing him 100% disabled person, he was entitled to the insured amount from the Insurance Company. Therefore, he wrote as many as four letters to them giving all the information, but since he received no reply from them. He was forced to file this complaint. 2. In the reply, various preliminary objections have been taken. The first is that the provisions of the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Long Term) taken by the complainant do not cover his case, because he was discharged from service due to prolonged illness in the form of cancer behind the back of the rasal area and the pharynx. The second objection is that the stipulation in the relevant clause of the said policy clearly mentions that the insured must have sustained any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by violent and visible means, which is not the case of the complainant. The next objection is that this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter, as the policy was obtained by him in the State of Assam. On merits, there is complete denial of the plea taken in the complaint. 3. The complaint is supported by the affidavit of the complainant who has also filed documentary evidence, in the shape of his period of service from the Assam Rifles. Annexure A-1, the medical history, Annexure A-2, the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Long Term), copy Annexure A-3, two communications in Hindi from the complainant to the Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company in Silchar (Assam) vide Annexures A-4 and A-5 and another letter in English from the complainant to the same Branch Manager is Annexure A-6. 4. The opposite parties-Insurance Company have not filed any evidence despite opportunity. As regards the vesting of territorial jurisdiction in this Commission is concerned, specific objection has been taken in the reply that the cause of action has accrued in Silchar (Assam). 4. The opposite parties-Insurance Company have not filed any evidence despite opportunity. As regards the vesting of territorial jurisdiction in this Commission is concerned, specific objection has been taken in the reply that the cause of action has accrued in Silchar (Assam). In this behalf, all that is stated in the complaint is that the opposite parties are carrying business for profit and gain and are running a Branch Office at Palampur within the jurisdiction of this Commission, hence, it can try the present complaint. However, the, documentary evidence produced by the complainant and referred to above goes to show that the policy was taken by him while in service ( of the Assam Rifles at Silchar (Assam) as is evident from the contents of his letters addressed to the Branch Manager at that place, filed as Annexures A-4 to A-6. 5. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, the plea for the sake of jurisdiction is that the opposite parties are having a Branch Office at Palampur which would vest jurisdiction in this Commission. Significantly, it has been wrongly stated in the rejoinder that the Oriental Insurance Company, Silchar has been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the complaint although the said opposite party No. 2 is Oriental Insurance Company, Silchar (Assam), through Branch Manager, Palampur, District Kangra. This is novel way resorted to by the person drafting the complaint trying to vest jurisdiction in the Consumer Fora. Admittedly, on the pleadings as discussed above, no such territorial jurisdiction vests here. 6. In view of the above discussion, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case so as not to prejudice the case of complainant, while at the same time we hold that the cause of action having wholly as well as partly arisen to the complainant in Silchar in the State of Assam, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The same is disposed of accordingly with liberty reserved to him to avail of his remedy before the Court/Forum having jurisdiction in the matter. We also make it dear that the time taken during the pendency of this complaint before this Commission shall not act as a bar of limitation against him.