INDIRA Vs. EUREKA FORBES LIMITED
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2009-3-5
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 04,2009

INDIRA Appellant
VERSUS
Eureka Forbes Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT (ORAL) - (1.)VIDE impugned order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the District Forum, the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation from the respondent against non -supply of security system along with video door bell system despite booking was dismissed at the stage of admission itself on the ground that the goods were booked from the area outside the area of that District Forum.
(2.)THROUGH this appeal the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the factual error and secondly on the premise of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, governing the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
(3.)CASE of the appellant is that agent of the respondent came to her residence at Shakti Nagar, which is well within the jurisdiction of the District Forum (North) and merely because office of the respondent is at difference place, which falls within the jurisdiction of New Delhi does not oust the jurisdiction of District Forum (North) as the respondent is carrying door to door business and therefore the whole cause of action arose at the place where goods were booked and were to be delivered.
Section 11 confers jurisdiction of the District Forum in any of these three places: (a) Where 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 4[has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or (b) Where 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 1[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 1[or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) Where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.