ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Only question involved for determination in this appeal is, whether the Fora at Shimla had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint of the appellant against the respondents or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, then this appeal has to be allowed, otherwise the impugned order calls for no interference and thus the appeal is liable to the dismissed. 2.Facts as they emerge from the record of this case are, that the appellant after passing the entrance test for the Master’s Course of Computer Science, deposited requisite fee of Rs. 10,000/- per Semester i.e. in all Rs. 20,000/- with the respondents. It may be noted that at the time of hearing it was not disputed on a behalf of respondent No. 1 that it is a University at Hissar and respondent No. 2 is its nodal, Centre at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana. 3.When hearing in this case commenced, the main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that her client was receiving the lessons prepared by respondent No. 2 at Shimla within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Shimla. She also received her result card at Shimla. In these circumstances, according to her, part of cause of action for maintaining the complaint arose at Shimla and the findings to the contrary recorded by the District Forum below need to be set aside. This plea on behalf of the appellant was contested by Shri Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. He forcefully urged that neither his client has any of its offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the Foras in the State of Himachal Pradesh, nor any other transactions took place between the parties as claimed by the appellant. As such, the impugned order passed by the District Forum below calls for no interference in the facts and circumstances of this case and he prayed for upholding the same. 4.Hearing in this case was earlier completed but with a view to hear the parties in the light of the judgment of the National Commission in the case of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain and others, 2006(III) CPJ 343 (NC), the matter was ordered to be listed on 20.9.2007 when it was heard again. 4.Hearing in this case was earlier completed but with a view to hear the parties in the light of the judgment of the National Commission in the case of Deputy Registrar (Colleges) and Anr. v. Ruchika Jain and others, 2006(III) CPJ 343 (NC), the matter was ordered to be listed on 20.9.2007 when it was heard again. Keeping in view the facts of this case, in our opinion, this decision has no applicability to the facts of this case. Moreover, this question was not gone into by the District Forum below, as such we think it appropriate not to deal with it save and except that the question regarding deficiency being there or not and relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the appellant and respondents is left open to be decided by the District Forum below. 5.So far cause of action is concerned, it constitutes in law of a bundle of acts giving right to a litigant like the appellant to maintain a lis against his opponent like respondents in the present appeal. We may mention in this behalf as to how part of cause of action arose in favour of the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Shimla. On having gone through the advertisement, he sent Rs. 250/- in terms thereof from Shimla. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, which is an admitted Nodal Centre of respondent No. 1 situated at Karnal, had been sending lessons to the appellant at Shimla and where he also received his result card. Therefore to say, that no part of cause of action arose in favour of the appellant at Shimla is not correct. 6.The decision referred to by the District Forum below in the case of Narinder Kumar Sood v. Punjab Motors Kurali and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 1378 : 2005(1) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 529 fully covers the present case on its facts and circumstances. To this effect is also the decision of this Commission in Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels World, 1997(1) CPC 312 as also of the National Commission in the case of Rampion Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Preetam Shah, 1997(1) CPJ 23 (NC). 7.We may mention here that it is by now well settled that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a welfare measure meant to give speedy, inexpensive and timely justice to the parties. Preetam Shah, 1997(1) CPJ 23 (NC). 7.We may mention here that it is by now well settled that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a welfare measure meant to give speedy, inexpensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly, it is also well known that where two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed. Taking note of this legal position as well as the facts as enumerated hereinabove, we find that the District Forum below fell into error by holding that the District Forum at Shimla has no jurisdiction while rejecting the complaint of the appellant. This order needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 8.We may clarify and reiterate that since complaint was disposed of by the District Forum below vide impugned order solely after coming to the conclusion that the District Forum at Shimla has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case and all questions relating to its merits are left open to the determined by the District Forum below. 9.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and also keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the District Forum, Shimla, has the jurisdiction to entertain as well as to adjudicate upon the complaint in question. As a result of it, this appeal is allowed and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number and date. Thereafter, District Forum below is directed to dispose of the complaint on its merit. Since parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the District Forum on 30.10.2007 and it will then proceed to dispose of the complaint on its merits in accordance with law. Costs on the parties. Since we have fixed the date in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties, no notice is required to be issued to the parties afresh. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of costs as per Rules. Appeal allowed. M.R.B. ———————