At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
For the Complainant: Sekhar Barman, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Prabir Basu, Abhik Kr. Das, Romi Chatterjee, Advocates.
Kalidas Mukherjee, President
This order relates to hearing on MA 403 of 2014 filed by OP No.1 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
It has been stated in the petition that the Complainant has prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.90 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh. It is submitted that the total bill towards the cost of treatment was Rs.29,05,150/- out of which the Complainant deposited Rs.70,000/-. It is contended that the value of services availed of and the amount of compensation with litigation cost taken together would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in II 1996 CPJ 103 (NC) [Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr.] and the order of this Commission in case no.CC 96 of 2012 [Sri Tapan Kumar Sarkar vs. Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors.].
The Complainant has filed written objection against the MA 403 of 2014. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant that after the death of the patient the bill was raised and the Complainant was not made known to that effect.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. From the prayer portion of the petition of complaint it appears that the Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.90 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh. The amount of the services availed of as per the bill annexed with the MA 403 of 2014 is Rs.29,05,150.41 out of which the Complainant deposited Rs.70,000/-. We are of the considered view that as per provision contained in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the C. P. Act, 1986 the value of services availed of and compensation should be taken together in determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In this connection we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in case no.2679 of 2011 (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that pecuniary jurisdiction is based on quantum of reliefs put together, that is, aggregate value of goods and compensation or aggregate value of services and compensation. In the instant case the value of the services with the amount of compensation and litigation cost would exceed the pecuniary jurisdicti
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
on of this Commission. The petition of complaint is, therefore, not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. MA 403 of 2014 is allowed. The petition of complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.