The cause of action for a consumer complaint can arise partly in the jurisdiction of a District Forum or State Commission, giving them jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—This application seeks to recall our order dated 7.10.1998. On 7.10.1998, we dismissed the appeal, as nobody appeared for the appellants inspite of service. The matter could not be adjourned further, as the case was very old and the appeal related to the year 1996. No sufficient cause has been shown as to why the appellants were not present on that date. The only ground taken in the application is that the Counsel did not inform the appellants about the decision of the appeal and that such decision has caused mis-carriage of justice and that this Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter. Such grounds do not explain as to why the appellants or their Counsel could not appear in the Court on 7.10.1998. The application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

2. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Counsel for the applicants/appellants, however, time and again contends that he has got a very good case on merits and this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter and the complaint was time barred.

3. It is not necessary to decide these questions as we have dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal. However, with a view to satisfying ourselves in the interest of justice, we have examined the arguments of the learned Counsel. The substance of the background of the case is that the appellants who are the manufacturers of Eicher Motors, admittedly, had appointed the dealer - M/s. G.S. Chawla, arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the complaint. The complainant with a view to purchasing Eicher Canter truck sent a demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- dated 29.8.1989 drawn on UCO Bank payable in favour of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., Indore and that such draft was received by M/s. G.S. Chawla, opposite party No. 3 who was authorised representative of Eicher Motors Ltd. at the time of accepting orders. There is no dispute that M/s. G.S. Chawla had been accepting orders from the customers on behalf of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. Inspite of the payment as a part consideration for Rs. 20,000/-, neither this amount was paid back to the complainant nor any vehicle was delivered to him and the request of the complainant has been repudiated on one pretext or the other. The complainant as such was forced to file the complaint.

4. In the aforementioned circumstances, the District Forum has rightly directed the appellants and other opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and costs of Rs. 800/- and who have been held jointly and severally responsible for making the payment. We have seen the reasoning given by the District Forum with which we are in agreement.

5. The contentions raised by the Counsel have no force at all. The complainant, admittedly, is the resident of Village Tanoh, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. In order to purchase an Eicher Canter truck, the complainant approached the appellants, who advised him to deposit Rs. 20,000/- by way of demand draft. Subsequently, one agent of the appellants visited the village of the complainant in connection with the said deal. The complainant in pursuance of such deal/transaction, sent a demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- dated 29.8.1989 drawn on UCO Bank, Lathiani Branch, District Una payable in favour of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., Indore and that such draft was received by M/s. G.S. Chawla opposite party No. 3. There is no dispute that M/s. G.S. Chawla, opposite party No. 3 at the relevant time had been accepting orders from the customers on behalf of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. Inspite of the payment as a part consideration for Rs. 20,000/-, neither this amount was paid back to the complainant nor any vehicle was delivered to him, as already discussed above. All these circumstances if taken cumulatively and other record available clearly suggest that the truck intended to be purchased by the complainant was to be mostly plied in Himachal Pradesh which has not been possible because of non-supply of the v