Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President— Although application for postponement of the case was filed, it is not considered appropriate to adjourn the case as Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has come from outside and opposes the same. We have gone through the grounds of appeal and the record of the District Forum with the assistance of Counsel for the respondent. The appeal is being disposed of on merits.

2. Mr. Desh Deepak, complainant, approached District Forum, Patiala with the complaint that a pouch of Dalda Ghee alleged to be containing 1 Ltr. (897 gms.) was found to be containing only 570 gms. of ghee. It was purchased on July 3,1996 vide receipt (Ex. C-2) for Rs. 37/- from M/s. Gulati Karyana Store, opposite party No. 1 as manufactured and packed by opposite party No. 2-Brook Bond Lipton Limited. On weighing, it was found 327 gms. of Ghee was less. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs were claimed in the complaint. The opposite party No. 1 in its reply admitted the sale of pouch of Dalda Ghee for Rs. 37/-, the price then prevalent. It was also admitted that the complainant approached him with the complaint of lesser weight of the pouch. The opposite party No. 2, however, denied the allegations. It was stated that no such complaint from any customer of lesser weight in the pouch was ever received. Some preliminary objections were taken that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a consumer. It was illustrated to be frivolous complaint for extracting money. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by opposite party No. 2 for sending the pouch of the Ghee for analysis. Vide order dated March 9, 1998, the aforesaid application was ordered to be decided with the main case. After both the parties had led their evidence on affidavits and documents, to verify the factual position, the District Forum got the pouch weighed and it was found to be 570 gms. indicating 327 gms. less than the printed weight. The batch No. on the pouch was 06053 dated 5/96. On the evidence produced by the parties, the impugned order was passed holding the sale of underweight articles to be unfair trade practice and directing opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant which order is challenged by opposite party No. 2-Brook Bond Lipton Limited in this appeal.

3. The grounds of the appeal are given in para 5. The question of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint is raised therein {(ground No. (b)). It is asserted that the opposite party is not having either head office or branch office at Patiala hence District Forum, Patiala could not entertain the complaint. There is no merit in this contention. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act deals with the subject of jurisdiction of the District Forums to entertain the complaints. It provides Clauses (a), (b) and (c) as under :

“11.(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each 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, or

(b) 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 is given, 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) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

4. If either of the clauses referred to above is made applicable, District Forum of that particular place would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The present case is covered by Clause