State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Madan Mohan Samant vs Dr. (Smt.) Anshu Aggarwal And Others on 20 February, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 4 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN COMPLAINT NO. 29 / 2004 Sh. Madan Mohan Samant ......Complainant Versus Dr. (Smt.) Anshu Aggarwal and Others .....Opposite Parties Sri Manoj Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Complainant Sri J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Niranjan Prakash, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 20.02.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
The preliminary objection raised in this complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pertain to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.
2. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 20,20,000/- along with interest under the following heads:
Rs.
20,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of the deceased.
Rs.
20,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The Learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that cost, which is always in the discretion and jurisdiction of the Forum / Commission, does not form part of claim and therefore the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be determined without the amount of cost that may be presumptively claimed by the complainant. In support they pressed into service a decision of the National Commission in the matter of Consumer Protection Council Vs. Union of India and Another; 2002 (2) CPR 30 (NC). The Learned Counsel for the complainant made an attempt to meet the objection by also placing reliance on the two decisions of the National Commission and a decision of Allahabad High Court to bring home his point of view that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction must be determined on the basis of allegations made and the reliefs claimed and further that the technical objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the opposite parties cannot be sustained when the evidence had already been received and the consumer cannot be made to travel from one Forum to another in derogation of the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. Having considered the respective submissions in the light of the decisions cited, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by adding presumptive cost of litigation in the compensation claimed to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-, which is the amount to be taken for determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel for the opposite parties rightly placed reliance on the aforementioned decision of the National Commission in the case of Consumer Protection Council (supra) wherein it has been held that cost is always with the jurisdiction of the Court and does not form part of the claim. In the case before the National Commission, the complainant in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission added the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the actual damages and compensation claimed. The addition of the cost for determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction was thus held inadmissible. In fact, the decisions of the National Commission in the matter of Professional Couriers Vs. Air Freight Ltd.; 1986-94, 385 (NS) and another decision dated 23.08.2005 in Revision Petition No. 853 of 2005 in the matter of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. M.K. Surgical Clinic and Stone Centre cited by the Learned Counsel for the complainant do not negate the view taken in the earlier mentioned decision pressed into service on behalf of the opposite parties. In the case of Professional Couriers (supra), there was nothing to indicate that the cost can be included in the relief to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, while in the second case of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (supra), the order of the State Commission that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter was not sustained in view of the fact that the State Commission made the order in appeal and therefore it was not found desirable that the consumer be made to travel from one Forum to another. So far as the decision of Maharashtra State Commission in the matter of Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat and Others Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others; I (1992) CPJ 140 is concerned, the same also does not help the cause of the complainant. It was held that the jurisdiction of the State Commission is to be determined on the basis of the claim laid in the complaint and not on the basis of the relief granted. In the instant case, the complainant has laid claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- and that amount alone, in view of the decision of the National Commission, had to be taken to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction while ignoring the addition of presumptive cost of litigation. Similarly in the reported decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Charan Das Vs. Th. Mohini Behariji Maharaj and others; AIR 1975 Allahabad 368, wherein it has been asserted that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction must be determined on the basis of the allegations made, can also not be taken to survive the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in regard to the instant complaint.
5. Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly mandate that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- but does not exceed Rupees One Crore. As stated above, the compensation claimed in the instant complaint does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/- ignoring the addition of the presumptive cost and therefore the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. Rather, the jurisdiction lie with the District Forum, which by virtue of the provision of Section 11 of the Act has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-.
6. In view thereof the complaint need to be returned to the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant so that the same may be presented before the proper Forum. We order accordingly and direct the office to make compliance forthwith.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)