ORDER Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral):- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have examined the record of the case. Complaint of the appellant has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction as also for want of facts to support plea of fraud and mis-representation made by the appellant in his complaint that was filed before the District Forum below. 2. Admitted facts of this case are that a Tata Sumo vehicle was purchased by the appellant from respondent No.1 at Chandigarh and its manufacturer is respondent No.2. It was registered with the Registering & Licensing Authority (R&LA), Gohar in Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh State. Appellant is residing in Mandi District and was plying the vehicle there. Further according to the appellant as there was deficiency in service. She filed the complaint. In the face of these allegations, the stand of the respondents was that the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Mandi was not there because neither the respondents were residing within the jurisdiction of the said Forum nor any cause of action arose in favour of the appellant in the said District of Himachal Pradesh. Other pleas relating to deficiency in service were also denied by them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant on the question of jurisdiction submitted that his clients case is covered under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore per him, District Forum at Mandi had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. On the other hand, Shri Kukreja submitted that District Forum at Mandi had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint in question what to talk of having adjudicated the same. 4. So far jurisdiction to entertain complaint at Mandi is concerned, we are>of the view that findings recorded by the District Forum in this behalf are liable to be set aside. Vehicle was admittedly registered at Gohar, District Mandi and was also being plied there. Therefore, in order to maintain the complaint before the District Forum at Mandi, part of cause of action within the meaning of Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act (supra), arose in favour of the appellant at Mandi. It is now wells settled that cause of action constitutes of a bundle of facts. Therefore, in order to maintain the complaint before the District Forum at Mandi, part of cause of action within the meaning of Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act (supra), arose in favour of the appellant at Mandi. It is now wells settled that cause of action constitutes of a bundle of facts. For taking this view, reliance is being placed on a decision of this Commission in the case of Narinder Kumar Sood Versus Punjab Motors Kurali & ors. Latest Himachal Law Judgment 2004 (HP) 1378.While allowing the appeal, this Commission in the case of Narinder Kumar Sood Versus Punjab Motors Kurali & ors.(supra) has placed reliance on a decision of this Commission in the case of Pradeep Kumar Khurana versus M/S Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312 (HP) and National Commission in the case reported as 1 1997 CPJ 23 (NC). An un-reasoned judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 169/2002, dated 10.6.2003, in the case of Anwar Versus Hind Motors Ltd. and another was relied upon by Mr. Kukreja on behalf of the respondents. After having gone through the same, we have not been able to persuade ourselves of follow the same in the face of the decision in case of Narinder Kumar Sood Versus Punjab Motors Kurali & ors. (supra). 5. To be fair to Shri Kukreja, we may also notice another contention urged by him for dismissing this appeal. According to him, allegations of fraud and misrepresentation have been made by the appellant in his complaint. There were no facts set out in the compliant to sustain such pleas, and even if such facts had been set out in the complaint, those could not have been gone into by the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, according to him, no fruitful purpose is going to be served, in case the case is remanded back to the District Forum below for adjudication on its merits. This is correct legal position. However, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we reject this plea. Reason being that once the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint in question, in our considered view, it should not have been gone into further. And when facts constituting mis-representation and fraud were not there it is not understood why the Forum dealt with such plea. Reason being that once the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaint in question, in our considered view, it should not have been gone into further. And when facts constituting mis-representation and fraud were not there it is not understood why the Forum dealt with such plea. Thus, we feel that grave error was committed by the Forum below in having gone into the question of fraud and mis-representation etc. We have purposely avoided to deal with this aspect of the case at length since, we have taken the view that the Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to have examined the complaint and then proceed to determine the same, of course, in accordance with law, on the basis of materials as well as pleadings of the parties in addition to evidence that may be produced before it. 5. No other point was urged. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while setting aside the impugned order dated 3.6.2004 in complaint No. 429/2000 (Old No.). 1023/2003 (New No.), the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number and date with a further direction that the same shall be disposed of on its merits without being prejudiced by anything said in this order which is meant for the limited purpose of disposal of this appeal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that the complaint titled Smt. Dhram Sheela versus M/S Hind Motors and another should be assigned for disposal in accordance with law to District Forum, Shimla. Parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the said Forum on 25.4.2006. Office is directed to transmit the record of this case to district Forum, Shimla under intimation to the District Forum at Mandi. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Office will supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per rules.