Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 2 April, 2003
10.
The principle
of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of
the instant case. In the instant case, the complainant claimed a sum of
Rs.17,94,000/, by way of indemnification, on account of loss of its goods,
which were got insured by it, from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and which
amount was not paid by them (Opposite Parties No.1 and 2), or was illegally
retained by them. It was, on account of this reason, that it claimed interest @18%
P.A., upto the filing of the complaint, which according to its calculation,
came to be Rs.6,72,212/-. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant,
that the lumpsum amount of interest @18% P.A., claimed by it, upto the filing
of the complaint, on the amount of Rs.17,94,000/-, which came to be Rs.6,72,212/-,
could be added to the said amount and other reliefs sought for by it, for
determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, and contrary to
the principle of law, laid down, in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.`s
case (supra), is rejected. On the
other hand, the submission of the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, that
the amount of interest could not be added to the amount of Rs.17,94,000/-, claimed
by the complainant, by way of indemnification, for determination of pecuniary Jurisdiction,
of this Commission, appears to be correct, and is accepted.
Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans Alias Ramesh ... vs Goyal Eye Institute & Ors. on 30 March, 2012
12.
The
Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, however, placed reliance on Consumer
Complaint No.135 of 2011, titled as Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans, Vs. Goyal Eye Institute
and Ors., decided on 30.03.2012, by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in support her contention, that the claim, made
by the complainant, in the complaint, was highly exaggerated, just with a view
to attract pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. The perusal of the facts
of Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans`s case (supra) clearly goes to show that the
complainant, got his both eyes operated. For right eye, he also underwent second
surgery. The total amount, which was spent by him, for operations,
hospitalization, fee paid to the Doctors, spectacles, injections, bandage &
dressing and medicines came to be Rs.86,050/-. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3
crores, including the cost of treatment and losses incurred due to the negligence
of the respondents, with interest @12% P.A., from 12.03.2010, till the date of
actual payment. After detailed discussion, the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the aforesaid case, came to the conclusion,
that though the complainant had incurred expenses of Rs.86,050/- only, towards his
medical treatment, yet he had claimed Rs.2.99 crores, towards non- pecuniary damages,
without giving breakup of such high claim. It was further held by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the compensation for
medical negligence or deficiency, in treatment, has to be commensurate with the
resultant loss and injury to the patient or his heirs. Ultimately, the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, came to the conclusion, that the claim made by
the complainant, was highly exaggerated, grossly overvalued, and unrealistic.
It was, under these circumstances, that the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the aforesaid case, held that the complaint
did not fall within its pecuniary Jurisdiction. It, accordingly, returned the
complaint, to the complainant, with a liberty to file the same, before the
appropriate Forum, after suitably modifying the valuation of the complaint. The
facts of the aforesaid case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the
instant case. In the instant case, the complainant is not claiming, the
compensation, to the tune of Rs.3 crores. The claim, made by the complainant,
therefore, could not be, said to be highly exaggerated, grossly overvalued or
unrealistic. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel
for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, from Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans`s case (supra)
to contend that the exaggerated claim had been made by the complainant, only to
attract the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission. The submission of the
Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, therefore, being devoid of merit, must
fail, and the same stands rejected.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1