IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision: 20.08.2008



Complaint Case No.2008/164


Sh. Rajesh Verma … Complainant
Bunglow Plot No.10, Flat No.1 through Mr. K.K. Luthra,
2nd Floor, Opp. Mother Dairy advocate,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi.



Versus



1. Centre For Sight (East) …. Opposite Parties

M/s. Sharp Sight Laser Centre

(Pvt. ) Limited,

81, Defence Enclave,

Opp. Preet Vihar, Petrol Pump,

Delhi.



2. Dr. Kamal B. Kapur,

Director

Centre For Sight (East)

M/s. Sharp Sight Laser Centre

(Pvt. ) Limited,

81, Defence Enclave,

Opp. Preet Vihar, Petrol Pump,

Delhi.



3. Dr. Mahipal S. Sachdeva

Chairman & Medical Director

Centre For Sight (East)

M/s. Sharp Sight Laser Centre

(Pvt. ) Limited,

B-5/24, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi.





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. Complaint is being taken up at admission stage.

2. Complainant got his eyes examined by the Ops at their centre since he

was suffering from some problem with his eyesight. He deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- with the OP No.1. OP No.2

performed the operation on the right eye of the complainant. That after the operation of the right eye, neither the

near vision was clear nor the distance vision was clear. He reported the same to the OP No.2 who prescribed some

medicines but despite applying the said medicines the problem continued to persist. That during these visits the OP

No.2, advised the complainant to over come the problem it was necessary to undergo the operation of the left eye as

the problem was because he was over stressing the right eye which has been operated upon.

3. The complainant again deposited Rs.35,000/- with the OP for the

operation performed by OP No.2, in the left eye of the complainant. But even after the operation of left eye, not

only the problem in the right eye continued but similar problem arose in the right as well. The complainant has

through this complaint sought compensation of Rs.37,00,000/- besides Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4. In view of the amount of consideration paid to the service provider and

the compensation claimed by the complainant on the limited deficiency in service, question arises whether the State

Commission has the jurisdiction to decide at admission stage of the complaint that the claim of complainant is

exaggerated or is at its whim or fancy and return or transfer it to the appropriate Forum on the ground of pecuniary

jurisdiction or has to accept the claim and valuation of compensation as put by the complainant as to decide

jurisdiction.

5. In several cases, Benches presided by Hon’ble President of the National

Commission have taken a consistent view that “State Commission” and for that purpose National Commission have

jurisdiction to decide at admission stage that the claim of the complainant is within pecuniary jurisdiction 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 Hon’ble President and other Benches. These are as under:-

(i) Appeal No. 95/2007 titled Anil K. Jain & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority



BEFORE

HON’BLE 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 learned 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 lacs. 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 titled J.C. Batra Vs. M/s Royal Jordanian.



BEFORE

HON’BLE 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.”





8. Another decision of a Two-Member Bench presided by Hon’ble 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

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE 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 Hon’ble 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 document 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.”

Sd/-

(K.S. GUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER



SD/-

(P.D. SHENOY)

MEMBER





9. 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. & another 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. Observation 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.”





10. In our view the view taken by Benches presided by the Hon’ble President 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.

11. Since the amount of compensation is highly exaggerated and has been inflate in order to invoke

jurisdiction of this Commission and even if the allegations of the complainant are assumed to be correct, the amount

of compensation shall not exceed Rs.20 lacs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint instead of

being returned is transferred to the concerned District Forum for consideration so as to avoid inconvenience to the

complainant.

13. The Complainant shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 22.09.2008.

14. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of

charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 20th day of August, 2008.









(Justice J.D. Kapoor)

President









(Rumnita Mittal)

Member

Tri