ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.118/2013 title Sanjay @ Dipu v. National Insurance Company & another whereby learned District Forum returned the complaint of complainant for presentation before proper District Forum. Brief facts of Case: 2. Sanjay @ Dipu filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of Alto Indigo vehicle No.HP-01A-2391 which was purchased by complainant for earning his livelihood by way of self employment after obtaining loan from bank. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite parties. It is pleaded that insurance premium was paid to opposite party No.3 and it is pleaded that validity of insurance was w.e.f. 31.07.2012 to 30.07.2013. It is pleaded that vehicle met with accident on 11.12.2012 at Solang Valley Manali. It is pleaded that vehicle sustained extensive damage. It is pleaded that insurance company did not settle the claim despite several requests and committed deficiency in service. Following relief sought. (i) Relief of payment of Rs.321646/- (Three lacs twenty one thousand six hundred & forty six) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.12.2012 till date of payment (ii) Additional relief for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Fifty thousand) sought as damage for deficiency in service (iii) Further additional relief of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) also sought as costs of litigation. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his acts deeds conducts and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action. It is further pleaded that premium cheque issued by complainant was dishonored. It is further pleaded that surveyor has recommended loss to the tune of Rs. 321646/- on the basis of salvage loss. It is further pleaded that value of salvage was assessed by surveyor to the tune of Rs.71146/-. It is further pleaded that complaint be dismissed. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable and it is also pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.3. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. It is further pleaded that complaint be dismissed. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable and it is also pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.3. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint and held that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. 6 Feeling aggrieved against order of learned District Forum Shimla complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire records carefully. 8 Following points arises for determination: 1) Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2) Final Order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle in question was registered at Shimla and was plied at Shimla and learned District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate present complaint is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is special Act. As per Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 jurisdiction of District Forum has been specifically mentioned. As per section 11(2)(a)(b)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint shall be instituted (a) where the opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than one parties at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or (b) where any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum should be sought or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain as the case may be acquiesce in such institution or (c) where cause of action wholly or in part arises. 10. We have carefully perused memorandum of appeal. 10. We have carefully perused memorandum of appeal. As per memorandum of parties address of opposite party No.1 has been mentioned as National Insurance Company Himland Hotel circular road Shimla-1 through its Divisional Manager Shimla and address of opposite party No.2 has been mentioned as Branch Manager National Insurance Company Solan Himachal Pradesh and address of opposite party No.3 has been mentioned as J.P. Motors Barog Solan through its authorised signatory. In the present complaint all the opposite parties are not residing at Shimla but only address of one opposite party i.e. opposite party No.1 has been shown at Shimla (H.P). It is held that case of complainant did not fall under section 11(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that address of one of opposite party has been shown as Shimla (H.P). Hence present case falls under section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that there is rider in section 11(2) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 that where one of opposite party resides within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum then District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaint only when permission of District Forum is sought or when opposite parties who did not reside within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum have acquiesce in institution of complaint. In the present case complainant did not seek permission of learned District Forum as required under section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to institute complaint. Even in the present case opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not acquiesce for institution of complaint before learned District Forum Shimla. Admittedly accident took place at Solang Nalla Manali which falls within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Kullu. It is held that cause of action to appellant did not arise within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla either wholly or in part. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that ruling relied by learned District Forum i.e. (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 135 Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company is not applicable in the present case because Hon''ble Apex Court of India had given ruling relying upon complaint which was instituted prior to amendment dated 15.03.2003 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons herein above mentioned. We have perused the ruling cited supra. We have perused the ruling cited supra. Hon''ble Apex Court of India has specifically discussed the amended provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f 15.03.2003 and Hon''ble Apex Court of India has held that branch office in amended section 17(2) would means branch office where cause of action has arisen. It is held that ruling given by Hon''ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all courts, tribunals, forums as per Article 141 of Constitution of India within the territory of India. In view of above stated facts it is held that order of learned District Forum is not illegal in any manner. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 final order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Observations will not effect merits of complaint in any manner. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copies of order be also transmitted to parties forthwith strictly in accordance with rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.