ORDER

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- 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.

4. Section 11 confers jurisdiction of the District Forum in any of these three places: