HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER
The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed by the Complainant assailing the judgment and order No. 53 dated 15.9.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in Complaint Case No. CC/09/433, dismissing the Complaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant, filing BNA, submits that the Ld. District Forum erred in law in allowing the second non-maintainability petition on the ground of lack of its pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Ld. Advocate continues that the Ld. District Forum also erred in law by not allowing the Complainant/Appellant to amend the total value of the Complaint Case to Rs. 15,73,806/- to bring the Complaint Case concerned within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission the instant Appeal should be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the Complaint Case concerned be remanded to the Ld. District Forum for hearing afresh on merits. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate refers to the following decisions:
- Sasanka Sekhar Bhowmic & Ors. Vs. Sri Meghnath Tanti & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) CLJ (Cal).
- Niranjan Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) CLJ (Cal.).
- Nellimarla Jute Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd., reported in 2009 (3) CHN.
- Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Manohar Lal, reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 212.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocates for the Respondents/OPs submit that there is no illegality in the order impugned.
The Ld. Advocates continue that as the provisions laid down u/s 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Ld. District Forum have not empowered Ld. District Forum to entertain a complaint case if the total value of service and compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 20 lacs as in the case on hand where the total value of the case stands at Rs. 20,73,806.44 (Rs. 20,00,000/- being the compensation claimed and Rs. 73,806.44 being the cost of treatment, i.e. service hired, as evident from the Inpatient Bill No. CS58277 dated 16.6.2009 of AMRI Hospitals Ltd. as available on records).
The Ld. Advocates also submit that it is well-settled that the Forum/Court being a creature of the statute cannot go beyond the legal provisions as prescribed under the Act concerned.
The Ld. Advocates further submit that it is also well settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans Alias Vs. Goyal Eye Institute & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) CPR 424 (NC) that Plaintiff cannot invoke jurisdiction of Forum by either grossly over-valuing or grossly under-valuing his claim.
The Ld. Advocates add that it is also well-settled that the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission is binding upon the District Fora and the State Commissions.
The Ld. Advocates also submit that the facts of the decisions referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant being not identical with the facts of the case on hand, those are not applicable to the case on hand.
The Ld. Advocates conclude that in view of the aforesaid submissions and the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission the instant Appeal should be dismissed and the impugned order be affirmed.
Heard the Ld. Advocates for both the sides appearing, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.
Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:
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 [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”].”
The materials on records reveal that the total value of the Complaint Case stands at Rs. 20,73,806.44 (Rs. 20,00,000/- being the compensation claimed and Rs. 73,806.44 being the cost of treatment as available from the Bill on records, let alone the claim of litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-/). The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the Complainant having not disclosed the cost of treatment in Complaint Petition has not approached the Ld. District Forum with clean hands and hence, the Complaint concerned deserves dismissal. In this context, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chenalvarya Naidu (Dead) Vs. Jagannath (Dead), reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 331, the relevant portion of which is quoted below:
“…where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of litigation…”
Another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. & Another Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Raj & Anr., reported in 2014 (4) CPR 272 (NC) is also relevant.
In view of the foregoing facts, evidence on records, submissions and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission the instant Appeal deserves dismissal and is dismissed accordingly and the impugned order is affirmed.
Liberty is allowed to the Complainant to move the appropriate forum for redressal.
