Jurisdiction in consumer complaints is confirmed where the cause of action arises, including the location of transaction.

1. Instant appeal is arising from order dated 13.8.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 08/2016, titled Ms. Namrata Versus Manish @ Sameer.

2. Brief facts of Case:
The case of the complainant Ms.Namrata is that the opposite party Sh.Manish alias Sameer claimed himself to be a Dance Director and Choreographer, running his business at various places in Chandigarh and allures young girls and boys by giving them chance in bollywood and dance shows on National television. The opposite party approached the complainant on 31.8.2015, in Shimla and allured to take admission, in his rock Star Dance Academy, on the pretext that he will give chance to her in bollywood and in the Dance reality show in National Television. The complainant deposited Rs. 50,000 on 1.9.2015 with the opposite party at Shimla and she was asked to visit Chandigarh for training programme. The complainant thereafter started going to the center / place where the opposite party claimed to be running the dance academy in Chandigarh but no training programme was found to be going on at the place. Ultimately opposite party told the complainant that no training programme is being organized. The complainant, thereafter asked the opposite to refund amount of Rs. 50,000 to her but he refused to do so.

3. The opposite party did not appear before the District Forum below to contest the complaint and was proceeded against ex parte on 11.3.2016.

4. The Learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant.

5. The Appellant / opposite party aggrieved from the said order filed the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant / opposite party and gone through the record of District Forum below. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent / complainant before this Commission.

7. Learned Counsel of the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the District Forum below is bad in law and the appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 13.8.2019 be set aside. It is further submitted that District Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel of the appellant admits that appellant has received Rs. 50,000 from the respondent at Chandigarh.

8. Findings:
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount was received at Chandigarh and Courts at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is without any substance for want of filing of reply or not challenging the ex parte order dated 11.3.2016, before this Commission.

9. A bare perusal of S.11(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , reveals that complaint can be instituted where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.

10. As per allegations made in the complaint, the opposite party contacted the complainant at Shimla on 31.8.2015 and allured the complainant to take admission with him and received fee of Rs. 50,000 at Shimla on 1.9.2015. Therefore, the part of the cause of action has arisen to the complainant at Shimla and the District Forum Shimla has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

11. The next submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the ex parte order dated 11.3.2016 and ex parte judgment dated 13.8.2019 be set aside.

12. The zimini orders of District Forum below indicate that after proceeding opposite party ex parte on 11.3.2016, Sh. Om Parkash Sharma Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party in ten hearings, i.e. 5.7.2017, 24.8.2017, 21.9.2017. 4.10.2017, 29.12.2017, 10.5.2018, 27.6.2018, 1