ORDER Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No.365/2007, dated 23.6.2010, whereby the complaint was allowed and opposite parties were directed to deliver the complainant Eicher Skyline Type 10.70, 31 seater bus having Eicher Company fitting and equipments for Rs.8,70,000/- and also pay him damages of Rs.50,000/- for causing him pain, suffering, loss of earnings and trauma within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of the order. Litigation cost was quantified at Rs.3,500/-. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Factual matrix of the case in nutshell is that the complainant being an unemployed youth and in order to earn livelihood, he is running business of transportation and for that purpose was plying Bus No. HP-07-4001 on route from Totu to Panthaghati. It is averred that the opposite party No.2 in the third week of July, 2007 offered to sell Eicher Skyline Type bus to the complainant complete in all respects for a total consideration of Rs.8,70,000/- and asked him to come to Chandigarh on 27.7.2007 alongwith advance booking amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is averred that on the assurance of the opposite party No.2 on behalf of the opposite party No.1, the complainant sold his bus No. HP-07-4001 on 23.7.2007 at a throwaway price in order to arrange amount for purchase of the new bus, hence, he paid Rs.10,000/- as advance sum to the opposite party No.2 on 27.7.2007. Further averments made in the complaint were to the effect that when the complainant visited the business premises on 4.8.2007, he was shown only Chassis of Eicher Bus without any Company fittings. It is averred that through the opposite parties were bound to deliver the desired bus to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.8,70,000/- without company fittings, but in order to satisfy the illegal demands of the opposite parties, he agreed to purchase the bus for Rs.9,20,000/-. However, when he reached the business premises of the opposite parties, he was shocked to notice and find that the opposite parties have fitted face on the same Chassis No.18H157887 which was shown to the complainant on 4.8.2007, hence he rightly refused to take the delivery of the bus and as such is suffering loss of Rs.5,000/- per day. However, when he reached the business premises of the opposite parties, he was shocked to notice and find that the opposite parties have fitted face on the same Chassis No.18H157887 which was shown to the complainant on 4.8.2007, hence he rightly refused to take the delivery of the bus and as such is suffering loss of Rs.5,000/- per day. Hence, deficiency of service was alleged on the part of the opposite parties. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service wherein relief to the extent as claimed in the relief clause had been prayed by the complainant. 3. Opposite parties have resisted and contested the present complaint wherein it was pleaded that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the complaint is false and vexatious and on merits it was contented that the complainant visited the works of the opposite parties at Zirakpur, took quotation for 10.75 bus chassis on which fabrication of skyline shape of bus was to be done after the complainant paid the entire cost price of the chassis. It was further contended that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- ways booking advance. It was submitted that there was no agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties where the bus was agreed to be sold at Rs.8,70,000/-. The cost of the bus was Rs.9,20,000/- which amount was asked from the complainant, who failed to deposit the same. The other allegations have also been denied in toto. Hence, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in the present case. 4.Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell in the present case is that the complainant in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Shri Pradeep Singh, Ex. C.1 to C.2 and had placed reliance upon various documents, viz. 4.Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell in the present case is that the complainant in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Shri Pradeep Singh, Ex. C.1 to C.2 and had placed reliance upon various documents, viz. draft dated 1.10.2007 amounting to Rs.10,000/- issued in favour of the complainant of Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh, which was sent ide letter dated 1.10.2007 by the opposite parties to the complainant, copy of the proforma invoice, dated 27.7.2007 amounting to Rs.8,70,0000/-, copy of draft amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of M/S Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd., dated 29.8.2007 of UTI Bank, Kasumpti, Shimla, copy of draft amounting to Rs.6,20,000/-, dated 29.8.2007 issued in favour of M/S Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. of UTI Bank, Shimla, copy of the receipt of an amount of Rs.10,000/- only received on 27.7.2007 by M/S Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd., Vill. Singhpura (Ambala-Chandigarh Highway), Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab), copy of the proforma invoice dated 4.8.2007 amounting to Rs.9,20,000/- issued by Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur, copy of proforma invoice dated 28.8.2007 for Rs.6,20,000/- issued by Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant, copy of proforma invoice, dated 28.8.2007 for Rs.3,00,000/- on account of Eicher 1075 Body Fabrication issued in favour of the complainant by Swami Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. and copy of letter dated 1.10.2007 of Swami Auto Care (P) Ltd. issued to the complainant regarding cancellation of booking and refund of booking advance. 5. Opposite parties in support of their case have filed affidavit of Sh. S.S. Grover, their Sales Manager and placed reliance upon the copy of the letter pertaining to cancellation of booking and refund of booking advance amounting to Rs.10,000/- dated 1.10.2007 issued to the complainant by Swami Auto Care P. Ltd. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants as the complainant had no paid the cost of bus, only an advance of Rs.10,000/- was paid which was even returned to the complainant vide letter dated 1.10.2007 since balance amount was not deposited towards the Chassis and as such booking was rightly cancelled. He had also raised a point relating to the jurisdiction of the Forum below in trying the present complaint. As per him, the Forum below has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Shimla as the booking amount even as per averments made in the complaint was paid at Zirakpur and the alleged draft amounting to Rs.9,20,000/- was never given to the appellants and simply preparation of draft at Shimla will not confer jurisdiction to the Forum below. As such, the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and it deserves to be set aside. 7. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent had supported the order of the Forum below and as per him since the drafts were prepared at Shimla and the representative of the opposite parties had also visited Shimla, as such cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum below and there is no legal infirmity in the order. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable. However, we are not going into the respective other contentions raised by the parties in the present appeal since to us it appears that the District Forum, Shimla, had no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the office of the opposite parties does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Forum below as the office of opposite party No.1 is at Zirakpur and opposite party No.2 is at Zirakpur. Simply making a draft at Shimla by the complainant will not confer jurisdiction to the Forum below. Moreover, the advance payment amounting to Rs.10,000/- which was the only payment made by the complainant was paid to the opposite party No.1 on 27.7.2007 at Zirakpur, Mohali which fact is clearly evident from the receipt issued by the opposite party No.1. Simply making a draft at Shimla by the complainant will not confer jurisdiction to the Forum below. Moreover, the advance payment amounting to Rs.10,000/- which was the only payment made by the complainant was paid to the opposite party No.1 on 27.7.2007 at Zirakpur, Mohali which fact is clearly evident from the receipt issued by the opposite party No.1. As such, no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Shimla, as Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mandates that the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party(ies) voluntarily reside(s) or carry(ies) on business or have/has a branch office where cause of action wholly or in part has arisen. The relevant portion of the Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:—(1)…(2)A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.As such in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the Forum below has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and as such the order of the Forum below is not legally warranted. We are also supported by the judgment of this Commission given in First appeal No.94/2010 titled as M/S A.K. Vidyamandir Private Limited Versus Ashu Gautam and another, decided on 6.7.2011. 9. No other point was urged. We are also supported by the judgment of this Commission given in First appeal No.94/2010 titled as M/S A.K. Vidyamandir Private Limited Versus Ashu Gautam and another, decided on 6.7.2011. 9. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, order of the District Forum, Shimla, passed in Consumer Complaint No.365/2007, dated 23.6.2010 is set aside and consequently appeal is accepted. It is however made clear that the complainant will be entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for prosecuting the proceedings in good faith either before the Forum below or before this Commission.All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.