AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. Binota Ray, Advocate has put in appearance for the respondents and wants to file her Vakalatnama. She is permitted to do so.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 14-09-2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') by which the appeal preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed and the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Paschim Medinipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to pass any orders thereon.
The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to internal page 4 of the complaint (at page 28 of the paper book) wherein the following averments and reliefs have been claimed.
"That in complainant had to spent sum of Rs.2,000/- at Annapurna Nursing Home for charges of doctor, anesthetist, nursing home charge, etc., as per package a sum of Rs.35,000/- at Sanjibani Hospital and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- at Apollo Hospital, besides a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been spent for treatment charge arrangement of emergency medicine, etc..
That the entire matter has been occurred by the doctor being opposite party No.1 and the Nursing Home authority being opposite party No.2 from whom the complainant purchased service in lieu of money but they failed to that proper care and their other regency, Mamata Hait has to died untimely and the same to gross deficiency in service and the complainant has been led with no other alternative but to file this complaint case against the opposite parties before the learned forum with the prayer.
To get adequate compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) for the deficiency in service made by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Cost of proceedings."
The State Commission has taken amount of expenditure incurred by the petitioner as mentioned in the body of the complaint and added it to the amount of compensation claimed by him for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. As it exceeded Rs.20,00,000/-, the District Forum had no jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties in the complaint is inclusive of the amount of Rs.6,62,000/- incurred towards expenses. Therefore, the maximum amount claimed as compensation inclusive of expenditure incurred by the complainant is only Rs.20,00,000/- which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The order of the State Commission so far as it dismissed the complaint on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction is, therefore, set aside.
The matter is, therefore, remanded to the State Commission to decide the same in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before the State Commission within a week and, thereafter, the State Commission shall fix a date for hearing the matter.
The revision petition stands disposed of.