indira Vs. Eureka Forbes Limited

indira vs Eureka Forbes Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Mar 04, 2009

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1111573

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1111573
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, President &Amp; the Honourable Ms. Justice Rumnita Mittal, Member
Decided On: Mar 04, 2009
Case Number: First Appeal No. 132 of 2009
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11 - Comparative Citation: 2009 (2) CPJ 231

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

indira

Respondent

Eureka Forbes Limited

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 11 - comparative citation: 2009 (2) cpj 231.....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. 4.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. 5.in the given facts and circumstances of the case, a prima facie view can be taken that the cause of action arose at shakti nagar, where the agent of the respondent came and booked the system and was to be delivered.....

Full Judgment

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):

1. Videimpugned 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.

4.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

5.In the given facts and circumstances of the case, a prima facie view can be taken that the cause of action arose at Shakti Nagar, where the agent of the respondent came and booked the system and was to be delivered there. It is not a case where appellant had herself gone to the place of business of the respondent and booked it.

6.In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent carries on its business by providing door to door services, the territorial jurisdiction can be invoked at the place where agent of the respondent went to provide the service. On prima facie view, jurisdiction of District Forum (North) can be invoked.

7.Since the complaint was dismissed at the stage of admission, the appeal is allowed at the very outset, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the District Forum for consideration with the liberty to the respondent to raise question of territorial jurisdiction which may be decided by the District Forum on merit.

8.The appellant shall appear before District Forum on 31.3.2009 for the aforesaid purpose.

9.A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal allowed.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties indira vs Eureka Forbes Limited Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, President &Amp; the Honourable Ms. Justice Rumni...

Land Acquisition