JUDGMENT Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President - The District Forum has directed the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite parties) to pay Rs.1,600/= deposited by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) alongwith interest @12% per annum from 01.12.1996 till actual payment and cost of Rs.500/=. 2. The facts which are not in dispute, are that the complainant opened a Recurring Deposit Account with the opposite party No.2 for a period of 5 years and paid Rs.1,600/= upto 30.11.1996 to them @Rs.200/= per month admittedly through the agent of opposite party No.2. However, the agent collected the amount for 8 months only and thereafter stopped such collection unilaterally. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to return the money she has deposited with them alongwith interest, but the amount was not refunded on the ground that under the agreement, the complainant is not entitled to withdraw the amount prematurely and that the money could have been deposited by the complainant direct with the Registered and Head Office at Chandigarh in case the agent of the opposite party No.2 did not come to collect the money. Further, the District Forum has no jurisdiction. The complaint lies at Chandigarh where the Registered and Head Office of the opposite parties situates. 3. It may be noticed that the opposite party No.2 is the local Branch of the opposite parties at Mandi and the Main Branch/Head Office of the opposite parties is at Chandigarh. 4. Mr. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the amount cannot be refunded prematurely and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and in case the money was not collected by tie agent of the opposite party No.2, that amount could have been sent direct to the Registered and Head Office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh. He has relied upon Condition No.5 of the Terms and Conditions printed on the reverse of the application form, which is quoted as under: "All the remittances must be made direct to the Registered and Head Office or to the authorised branches of the company only. Tie Company shall not be responsible for any payment made anywhere or to anybody else. The remittances should only be against receipt." There is no force in this submission. Tie Company shall not be responsible for any payment made anywhere or to anybody else. The remittances should only be against receipt." There is no force in this submission. Condition No.5 which is heavily plied upon by the Counsel, itself gives an option to the complainant to deposit the amount either directly at the Registered and Head Office or to the authorised branches of the company. In the present case, the authorised branch of the company is admittedly at Mandi whose agent used to collect the money and in fact collected the money for 8 months of Rs.200/- per month i.e. Rs.1,600/- in all. Therefore, it was not required of the complainant legally under this condition to send and deposit the money directly to the Registered and Head Office at Chandigarh. The complainant has admittedly deposited this amount with the local authorised branch of the company at Mandi through its agent. It has not been shown that the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the instalments as before but on the other hand, opposite party No.2s agent failed to collect fee money and as a result of this, the complainant was constrained to seek refund of the amount prematurely because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Furthermore, the very fact that the agent of the opposite party No.2 has collected the money, as stated above, for8 months from the complainant, clearly reveals that there has been agreement between the parties that the money has to be collected from le complainant through the authorised agent of the opposite party No.2 and the opposite parties themselves have made a departure from this condition No.5 as laid down by them that remittances of the amount may pt be made direct to the Registered and Head Office, but these be collected from the complainant through their agent. It, therefore, does lot lie in the mouth of the opposite parties now to say that the complainant would have remitted the amount direct to the Registered and Head Office. 5. In the light of foregoing, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant was ready willing to pay the instalments, whereas on the other kind, the opposite party No.2 through its agent has failed to collect the same and on such failure, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of the amount prematurely. 5. In the light of foregoing, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant was ready willing to pay the instalments, whereas on the other kind, the opposite party No.2 through its agent has failed to collect the same and on such failure, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of the amount prematurely. Deficiency of service on the party of the opposite parties is writ large on the face of it. 6. The next submission made by the learned Counsel is that only the Courts at Chandigarh has jurisdiction in the matter where the Registered and Head Office of the opposite parties is situated. 7. Suffice it to say the money has been deposited with the Branch Office at Mandi and such amount has not been refunded to the complainant and a part of cause of action has arisen at Mandi. Moreover, the Branch Office of the Company is at Mandi and the District Forum has jurisdiction in the matter. Any terms and conditions stipulated otherwise unilaterally by the opposite parties cannot oust the jurisdiction. 8. In the light of what is discussed above, there is no force in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.