20/05/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT           

            This order relates to hearing on MA 964 of 2015 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.  It has been stated that the total compensation has been claimed to the extent of Rs.49 lakh as mentioned in paragraph 23 of the complaint, but the value of services amounts to Rs.5,565/- only.  It is submitted that the amount of compensation is inflated one and it has been made only to attract pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has submitted that the amount of compensation is disproportionate with the amount of hiring services.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in I (2015) CPJ 20 [Neerad Panday vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.]; CC 135 of 2011 (NC) [Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans vs. Goyal Eye Institute & Ors.] decided on 30/03/12.

            The Learned Counsel for the Complainants has submitted that the complaint has been admitted on 05/06/13 and no Appeal or Revision was preferred by the OPs.  It is contended that after admission of the complaint the petition for non-maintainability of the complaint cannot be entertained.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the decision reported in AIR 1996 Cal 231 [Binod Behari Das vs. Smt. Soma Roy & Ors.].

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  The complaint has been instituted alleging deficiency in service against the OP.  The Complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs.49 lakh.  From page 22 being annexure to the complaint it appears that the total amount of the bill was Rs.5,565/-.  So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there is no break up in paragraph 23 of the complaint.  In view of the value of the hiring services, we are of the view relying on the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant that the amount of compensation is inflated.  The complaint should have been filed before the Learned District Forum.  The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainants is not applicable in the circumstances of the instant case.  We are of the considered view that the question of non-maintainability of the complaint is a question of law and it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding.

            MA 964 of 2015 is allowed.  The petition of complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.