AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 24.04.2018 passed in revision petition No. 222 of 2016 by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission allowed the revision petition of the opposite party / doctor and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly (in short, 'the District Forum'), and, consequently, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
The District Forum vide Order dated 25.10.2016 rejected the objection raised by the opposite party that the complaint was not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2016, the opposite party / doctor filed revision petition before the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petition and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Complainant/Petitioner has filed this revision petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service in treatment and for mental agony, respectively. However, the complainant in his complaint mentioned the cost of treatment being Rs.8 lakh in para 21 of the complaint. Considering the three amounts the total value of the complaint stands at Rs.25 lakh, which exceeds the pecuniary limited of District Forum as prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the District Forum cannot entertain the matter.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 17,00,000/- only. Therefore, anything pleaded in the complaint shall not be considered for calculation of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments adduced before us by both the parties. We have perused the complaint and the orders of the lower fora. The prayer clause in para 25 of the complaint is as under:
"25. That the complainant prays before Your Honour for:-
a. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only as compensation from the opposite party no. 1 & 2 and 3 are jointly for their deficiency in service regarding the improper treatment of her mother.
b. A further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) only for harassing the petitioner and causing mental trauma to the complainant and her mother and the entire family due to wrong treatment of her mother by the opposite party no. 1 along with opposite party no. 2 and 3 are
c. A further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as cost of the instant complaint from the opposite party no. 1 & 2 and 3.
d. Any other relief/reliefs fit and proper as per law and equity.
From a bare perusal of para 25 of the complaint it is clear that the complainant had only prayed for compensation of Rs.17 lakh alongwith cost of litigation at Rs. 50,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the complainant neither prayed for reimbursement of the cost of treatment. Thus, it was a wrong assumption on the part of the State Commission to include the cost of the treatment in the prayer when it was not claimed by the complainant.
Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is clear in this regard. It is reproduced below:
"11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].
In our considered view, the complaint has been filed within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the complaint, lest it may cause prejudice to the parties, based on the foregoing discussion, we allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission.
The matter is remanded back to the District Forum for further adjudication as per law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 05.02.2019.