The cause of action for territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not determined by the location of payment, but by the occurrence of non-refund of the payment.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated the 4.12.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. TC/1563/1998 — entitled Smt. Vidya v. National Capital Region Planning Board & Anr.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Smt. Vidya, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2, the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, in the daily The Hindustan Times, the appellant had applied for one plot under category B-1 through application form No. 6447 and had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 13.9.1989 as registration money against the total cost of the plot amounting to Rs. 1,12,500/-. It was stated that thereafter the appellant received a letter from respondent No. 2, Meerut Development Authority directing the appellant to further deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by 15.3.1990, which was also duly deposited by the appellant. Thereafter the appellant received another letter dated 1.12.1994 from the respondent Meerut Development Authority intimating the appellant that the balance amount together with interest be paid within a week from the date of the receipt of the above said communication failing which the deposited amount would be forfeited and the allotment would be cancelled. It was stated that unable to manage the full payment, the appellant requested for the refund of the amount deposited by her. As per the case of the appellant, there was no justification on the part of the respondent, Meerut Development Authority, in demanding the full payment because in terms of the scheme floated by the respondent, Meerut development Authority as advertised in the daily newspaper the payment of the cost of the plot was to be made in easy instalments extending from 12 to 15 years. It was stated that despite repeated requests the amount deposited was not refunded as a result of which the appellant had to file the complaint. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. The appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation.

3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (National Capital Region Planning Board), it was stated that the above said respondent was in no way connected/involved with the allotment of plots by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 had not obtained any approval/consent from respondent No. 1 and as such respondent No. 1 was not a necessary or proper party. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Meerut Development Authority, certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, filed by the appellant, were taken including the objection that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant. On merits while admitting the floating of the scheme the deposit of the registration amount, allotment of the plot in favour of the appellant, it was stated on behalf of the above said respondent that the appellant had sent a letter dated 8.2.1991 for the refund of the amount in question and in response thereof a letter dated 6.9.1991 bearing No. 9309 was addressed to the appellant asking the appellant to complete certain formalities which the appellant did not complete. It was denied that the respondent refused to refund the amount to the appellant. It was stated that the amount could not be refunded as th