Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— This appeal filed by the Anupama College of Pharmacy, Bangalore through its Secretary Smt. Krishna Vani and its Principal, is against the order dated 8th of September, 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum has found, that the complainant Mr. Sanjiv Gupta was entitled to Rs. 23,700/- from the appellant and had accordingly directed them to refund the aforesaid amount, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 6th of October, 1993 till the date of payment, alongwith a sumof Rs. 5000/- awarded by way of costs and damages to the complainant

2. In the appeal before us, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that the gravamen of the charge as levelled by the complainant was, that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 1700/-; to the College Authorities towards the admission-fee, tuition fee and the boarding and lodging fee in the Anupama College of Pharmacy, Bangalore. Since, according to the complaint, no such instruction as represented by the Anupama College authorities was imparted mere, the complainant was entitled to the refund of the same. On this premises, the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that assuming the assertions made in the complaint as correct, the District Forum at Jagadhri had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complainant, if so advised, had to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Bangalore where the payment was made. Elaborating his submissions it has further been stated by the learned Counsel, that the initial amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid by the complainant at Delhi by producing a demand draft from Canara Bank at Delhi Similarly, amount of Rs. 17,000/- was paid on 28th of September, 1993 by the complainant alongwith his fee, at Bangalore in the college through a demand draft. Similarly, amount of Rs. 1700/- was paid as security in the hostel (Rs. 1000/- for boarding and Rs. 700/- for lodging) at Bangalore.

3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant had pleaded, that since the complainant-Sanjiv Gupta was at Yamuna Nagar and he had read the advertisement in the Daily “Punjab Kesri” Newspaper, on 5th of August, 1993 at Yamuna Nagar, the complaint was very much maintainable before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar at jagadhri.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view, that the District Forum, Jagadhri did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits in whose jurisdiction, either the opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. In the present case, firstly the appellants-opposite parties are residing at Bangalore carrying on their activities at that place and the payments of the amounts in question were also made at Bangalore. Therefore, in the present case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Jagadhri. Merely because the advertisement appears in the Newspaper, which was read by the complainant at Jagadhri, does not give him a cause of action for approaching the District Forum at Jagadhri. For authority, a reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others reported as 1995 (1) PLR 245, in which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahmadi, as His Lordship then was, held as under :

“According to NICCO, it became aware of the contract proposed to be given by ONGC on reading the advertisement which appeared in the Times of India at Calcutta. In response thereto, it submitted its bid or tender from its Calcutta office and revised the