ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 601 of 2014; Sh. Girish Bhushan Goyal and another Vs. The Company Secretary, Plethico Pharmaceuticals Limited and another, whereby the consumer complaint was allowed by the District Commission and the appellant & respondent No. 3, who were opposite parties before the District Commission, were directed to refund the invested amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 – complainants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 – complainants, had invested an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in a fixed deposit scheme with respondent No. 3 – Invested Company through the appellant – Broker, on 24.06.2011 vide FD Receipt No. 7178. The maturity date of the FDR was 23.06.2014 and the same was to fetch interest @12.50% p.a. The complainants were told that under the scheme, there is a provision for payment of additional interest to senior citizens and the maturity amount would be paid in lump sum. Inspite of maturity of the FDR, the proceeds thereof were not paid by respondent No. 3 and inspite of repeated letters from the side of the complainants, no satisfactory reply was tendered. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant & respondent No. 3 in not paying the maturity amount of the FDR, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainants before the District Commission.

3. The respondent No. 3 – opposite party No. 1 did not file any written statement before the District Commission and vide order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the District Commission, their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed and consumer complaint was directed to proceed ex-parte against it.

4. The appellant – opposite party No. 2 filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that the complainants voluntarily and willingly opted to invest amount in a Fixed Deposit Scheme of respondent No. 3 and not under the influence of the appellant. The appellant was only a broker. It was also pleaded that if the respondent No. 3 fails to refund the maturity amount to the complainants, the appellant can not be held liable for the same. The District Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No deficiency in service has been committed by the appellant and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Commission, after hearing the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2019 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (original complainants) in person and perused the record. Vide order dated 03.05.2024, it was directed that the appeal shall proceed ex-parte against respondent No. 3.

7. The first and foremost issue to be decided in the present case is as to whether or not the District Commission, Haridwar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint and decide the same on merits. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Commission, the appellant has specifically made a challenge as to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission. In addition thereto, in the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that after receiving the copy of the consumer complaint, the appellant moved an application before the District Commission on 02.02.2015 with regard