JUDGMENT Pratlma Malhotra, Member—The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant applied for a residential plot measuring 14 marlas (350 sq. meters) in Sector 31-3^A Part 30, 39, 40 and 41 at Gurgaon in response to the advertisement appearing in the newspaper In the name of Respondent No. 1. He also deposited the earnest money Rs. 13,500 through Punjab National Bank, Shimla on 17-8-1988. 2. That the plots were to be allotted by draw of lots. The complainant wrote letters on 12-12-1989, 10-4-1990 and 14-8-1990 enquiring about the allotment of plot but according to him no response was given by the respondents. On 2-12-1990, however, he received the refund of earnest money by draft on 7-12-1990 for Rs. 13,500 without any demand on his part. It is alleged that by sending the refund of earnest money, Respondent No. 2 has caused grievous mental agony and tension to the complainant and financial hardship By way of relief the complainant bas prayed for allotment of a plot in one of the residential complex of Gurgaon and Rs. 1 lac damages for mental harassment. He has also claimed another sum of Rs. 1 lac on account of increase in the construction cost which he would have to bear for building a house on such a plot. Another sum of Rs. 87 40 paise has been claimed on account of postal and miscellaneous charges incurred by him The respondents have filed reply controverting the claims on merit besides raising the preliminary objection to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 3. At the threshold we have to decide the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents no cause of action has arisen in Shimla to give jurisdiction to the H. P. State Consumer Commission. The principal office of the respondents is situated at Chandigarh, Advertisement for allotment of plots were issued from Chandigarh, applications were entertained, draw was held, and allotment letters were despatched from Chandigarh. The plots itself were located at Gurgaon. Thus no part of the cause of action had arisen at Shimla. The mere fact that the complainant had obtained application form and remitted money through a Bank at Shimla, according to him, does not constitute an act falling within the ambit of section 11 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The plots itself were located at Gurgaon. Thus no part of the cause of action had arisen at Shimla. The mere fact that the complainant had obtained application form and remitted money through a Bank at Shimla, according to him, does not constitute an act falling within the ambit of section 11 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed before us a copy of the order of the National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Smt Sunita Garg. Rev Pet. No 163 of 1991 (NO, in which it has been held that the mere fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat was remitted through the branch of Vijaya Bank at Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to contend that any part of the cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh. The District Forum. Chandigarh was, therefore, perfectly right in the view taken by it that it has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the complaint In addition the learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to R Sathyanaravana v The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, I (1993) CPJ 279, where it has been held that as the Supreme Court function in New Delhi, "the Karnataka State Commission" has no territorial jurisdiction to give relief sought for by him." 4. The second limb of his argument is that the HUD \ is a body corporate as described in section 3 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short of the Act, 1977), that its principal office is situated at Chandigarh notified under sub-section (I) ibid and that it has no subordinate office functioning at Shimla. Therefore in the light of the order of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and another, (i 99;) 1 CPR 4 (NC), the H. P. State Commission has no jurisdiction. Therefore in the light of the order of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and another, (i 99;) 1 CPR 4 (NC), the H. P. State Commission has no jurisdiction. According to the above Order j "it is clear beyond doubt that where the defendant against whom a suit is proposed to be instituted is a corporation, the suit will lie only in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the corporation in India is situated except in cases where a cause of action has arisen at any other place where the corporation has a subordinate office in which event the suit can be instituted in a Court within whose jurisdiction such subordinate office is situated." and further; "In our opinion it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaints instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the corporation within its territory. We would therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied, the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum cannot validly exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint." 5. Yet another limb of argument advanced was based on section 50 of the Act. 1977 whereby no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules and regulations made there under. We, however, do not consider it worth-while to dilate on this point ia view of the fact that in the light of law and authorities cited supra is no escape from the findings that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain much less to adjudicate the present complaint We therefore, dismiss the complaint for that reason. The dismissal however, we may hasten to add, would not bar the complainant to pursue the Its before the competent forum or authority in accordance with the law. For that reason also we refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case lest the complainant may feel prejudiced. 6. The parties would bear their own costs. Announced today the 6th of July, 1993. Complaint dismissed.