State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Meenu Khanna, vs Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, on 28 May, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 28-05-2008 Complaint Case No. 08/95 Smt. Meenu Khanna, W/o. Shri Hemant Khanna, R/o. 1-11394, Subhash Park Extension, Shahdara, Delhi 110032. . . . . Complainant Versus Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Through Its Superintendent, New Delhi 110001. . Opposite Party CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. The complaint is being taken up at the stage of admission. On the allegations of the complainant having been administered an Injection of Phenargan, when she approached the Opposite party (O.P in short) Hospital for treatment, resulting in the fingers of the left hand of the complainant losing sensation, for which she is still under treatment and huge expenses are incurred by her and has been rendered handicapped.
2. There are no documents to show the expenses incurred by her and the problem being suffered by her due to the negligence or wrong treatment of the O.P. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.25.00 Lakhs. The object of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the consumer unjustly. It is only to compensate the consumer for the mental agony or harassment or for the injury suffered reasonably keeping in view the consideration paid by the consumer.
3. On the face of it, the amount of compensation is highly exaggerated for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction of this Commission.
4. In view of the huge amount of compensation claimed by the complainant a question has been raised whether the State Commission has the jurisdiction to decide at admission stage of the complaint whether the claim of the complainant is exaggerated and/or is at its whim or fancy and accordingly return or transfer it to the appropriate Forum on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction or the State Commission has to accept the claim and valuation of compensation as put by the complainant so as to decide pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. In several cases, Benches presided by Honble President of the National Commission have taken a consistent view that State Commission and for that purpose the National Commission have jurisdiction to decide at admission stage as to the claim of the complainant is exaggerated or not and it is not for the complainant to justify its claim at the time of hearing of the complaint to justify its claim by leading necessary evidence. According to these decisions, it is rather the duty of the State Commission to decide whether the complaint was required to be entertained on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction or not.
6. In this regard we deem it necessary to refer to some of the decisions of the Benches presided by the Honble President and other Benches, which are as under:-
(i) Appeal No. 95/2007 - Anil K. Jain & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Puneet Jain Advocate with Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate.
22.02.2007 Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Commission ought not to have transferred the complaint to the District Forum for consideration because the claim of the complainant was for a sum of Rs. 34.00 Lakhs. He submitted that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to decide at admission stage that the claim of the complainant was exaggerated and it was for the complainant to justify its claim at the time of hearing of the complaint before the State Commission by leading necessary evidence.
In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
It is not necessary that the State Commission should admit such complaint and keep it pending for years. If such complaints are kept pending before the Consumer Fora then the entire purpose and object of rendering speedy justice to the consumers would be frustrated.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora have to find out whether the complaint is maintainable or not and with regard to the admissibility of the complaint, Consumer Fora are required to decide within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was received.
Hence, it was the duty of the State Commission to decide whether the complaint was required to be entertained on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and that has been done in the present case.
(ii) Appeal No. 304 of 1998 - J.C. Batra Vs. M/s Royal Jordanian.
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri P.R. Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri U.A. Rana, Advocate.
Shri Prashant K. Thakur, Advocate.
Dated the 01st day of February 2007 O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The State Commission by the impugned order dated 21- 08-1998 arrived at a conclusion that the claim made by the complainant was grossly exaggerated. Hence, the complaint was returned with directions that, if so advised, the complainant may approach the District Forum after putting in proper valuation amount of compensation.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and we also feel that even if there is an alleged deficiency, the claim is grossly exaggerated. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
The appeal is therefore dismissed. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 5000/- as costs to the respondent. It would be open to the complainant to approach the District Forum by filing complaint.
7. Another decision of a Two-Member Bench, presided by Honble Justice K.S. Gupta, is First Appeal No. 776 of 2006 titled Mr. Anil Khanna & Anr. Vs. M/s J.M.D. Promoters Ltd. decided on 14-01-2007. Order reads as under:-
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER For the Appellant:
Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 1-11-2006 of State Commission, Delhi, transferring the complaint to the concerned District Forum holding that at any rate compensation of more than Rs. 20.00 lakhs cannot be granted to the appellants/ complainants. Copy of the complaint is at pages 14-18. Prayer clause of the complaint which is material, reads as under:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Commission may be pleased to:-
a) Direct the opposite party to sell the flat to the complainants at the rate on which they had taken the first instalment i.e. Rs. 32,50,000/-.
b) Direct the opposite party to supply all necessary documents to the complainants as required by them for raising loan.
c) Direct the opposite party to pay compensation to the complaints to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the unfair practice, harassment, mental torture and by way of compensation.
Prayer made in pith and substance is for passing direction to the respondent/opposite party to sell the flat at the agreed rate, supply documents as required by the appellants for raising loan and pay Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. In the complaints filed before Consumer Fora ad-valorem court fee is not paid. Obviously, amount of Rs. 32,50,000/- in said sub-clause
(a) was included to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission which minus that amount can be entertained by a District Forum. In this backdrop, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. Recently a two-Members Bench presided by Justice R.C. Jain, a former Judge of High Court, in Appeal No.710 of 2007 titled Devender Malhotra, Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20-02-2008 taken the view that State Commission or for that purpose National Commission has no power to examine the pecuniary value of the complaint at the stage of admission and has to decide the jurisdiction as per value and compensation claimed by the complainant. Observations of the Bench are as under:-
No forum constituted under the Act will be within its right to put its own value either by reducing or enhancing the value put by a complainant under the assumption that ultimately the complaint may not be able to sustain his claim beyond a particular amount. Doing so would amount to prejudging the complaint. A complainant is entitled to place such value on his complaint and to claim such compensation as he deems proper and the valuation so put by the complainant shall decide the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a constituted under the Act, rather than the value substituted by a forum.
9. In our view the view taken by Benches presided by the Honble Presidents and other Benches shall prevail firstly because of there being unvarying unanimity of these Benches and secondly because of the President of National Commission having exercised higher jurisdiction, than Members of National Commission, having remained the Judge of Supreme Court.
10. In our view the amount claimed is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful and has been claimed with the sole object of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission. Object of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the consumers unjustly.
11. Even if the allegations are proved the compensation to which the complainant is entitled would not exceed Rs. 20.00 Lakhs. In order to avoid further inconvenience to the complainant by filing a fresh complaint, we instead of returning the complaint, are transferring the complaint to the District Forum. The complainant shall appear before the district Forum on 09-07-2008.
12. The complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. Copy of order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the complainant and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK