Order-10.

Date-05/05/2015.

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of application for amendment of complaint/petition filed by the complainant on 19.02.2015 against that op raised an objection by filing objection submitted that such an amendment for creating the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is not maintainable.  When the complaint was filed for a relief/redressal and compensation of Rs. 19 lakhs.  But now the complainant tried to curtail the compensation amount and made this complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

          Fact remains that it is a case for medical negligence and it was filed on 01.12.2014 and relief as sought for.  Whereas the amendment petition was filed on 19.02.2015 after filing of the maintainability challenging the maintainability of this case by the op.  Truth is that op filed application for challenging the maintainability of this complaint on 16.02.2015.  When in the face of the averment of the complaint it appears that compensation was Rs. 19 lakhs and also Rs. 5 lakhs i.e. Rs. 24 lakhs.

          Whereas the total bill for Annexure-H11, the total bill for the op nos. 1 to 4 was Rs. 23,83,563/- and along with compensation amount of Rs. 19 lakhs, the total bill of the ops i.e. Rs. 23 lakhs and odd are added, in that case the total valuation of the complaint would be more than Rs. 20 lakhs for which the present Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same as this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction and that is the objection of the op.

          So, in the above circumstances, we shall have to decide whether this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint on the basis of the valuation as made in the original claim application? 

                                                        Decision with reasons

          Fact remains that initially the complaint was filed on 01.12.2014 and it was admitted for further proceeding on 15.12.2014 when the claim of the complainant for redressal was Rs. 19 lakhs + Rs. 5 Lakhs i.e. total Rs. 24 lakhs and after hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the op and also considering the application challenging the maintainability of this case filed on 16.12.2015, it is found that on that date the total relief as claimed was Rs. 24 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs, but the jurisdiction of this Forum is Rs. 20 lakhs.  Against that petition challenging the maintainability of this case filed by the op, complainant filed an application on 16.02.2015.  Thereafter complainant filed an application for amendment of the complaint by deleting the relief as claimed and other amendment on 19.02.2015.

          Fact remains that in support of the amendment petition, complainant submitted certain rulings and at the same time op also submitted some ruling.  But after considering all the rulings including the provision of Section 17(1)(a) and also the provision of Section 11(1) and Section 21(a)(i), we find that for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, the criteria of the value of goods or services if claimed without any compensation would govern the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora and where the complainant gives the value of the goods and compensation or the value of the services and compensation, then the question arises whether each one of then should exceed or cross the hurdle of the pecuniary jurisdiction or not.

          In fact after considering the entire provision, it is found that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora shall be based on total value of the goods and compensation or if any or in other case the value of the services and compensation if any and any other interpretation would lead to conflict of jurisdiction.  Even though the Legislature has not mentioned the word aggregate before the word value of the goods or services.  In this context of provisions of the act, the intention is clear to give jurisdiction based on the quantum of reliefs put together.  In other words, aggregate of the value of the goods and aggregate of the value of services and compensation, or on the aggregate value of the goods and services and compensation.

          But in this case no doubt complainant filed this complaint for relief of Rs. 19 lakhs + Rs. 5 lakhs i.e. total Rs. 24 lakhs and the case was admitted for further order.  But after considering the ruling of the complainant as referred and also considering the statutory provision of C.P. Act regarding maintainability of this case, we have gathered that initially the complaint was filed for relief of Rs. 24 lakhs, that means anyway this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and even then it was admitted for further proceeding.  But as per provision of Section 17 & 11 of the C.P. Act, it is found that this Forum has no jurisdiction.

          Moreover this amount was describing the prayer portion that is the relief as initially sought for.  Legal proposition is that op challenged the maintainability of this case just after hearing when total value of the claim of the complainant was Rs. 24 lakhs and at that point no doubt this amendment ought to have decided as the Forum’s territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint and considering the principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in different ruling AIR 1978 Calcutta 133 and other ruling it is clear that no amendment petition can be entertained without deciding the fact whether the Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain such amendment because already op raised the challenge, the maintainability of the complaint in view of the fact that complaint was admitted and further proceeds and in that case complainant prayed for relief to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs, no doubt for that reason this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide and it is also settled principle of law where the Forum lacks jurisdiction either pecuniary or territorial it cannot grant any amendment of the plaint to bring the case within its jurisdiction and that is the decision of Hon’ble High Court Calcutta also and in view of the above and also after applying our judicial mind and view, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the original complaint.  In view of the fact the claim of the complainant was for Rs. 24 lakhs.  When that is the fact, then subsequent application for amendment of the complaint to bring the case within the jurisdiction is not entertain able by this Forum.

          Truth is that granting an amendment petition the authority of the Forum to entertain the complaint and amendment order as amended therein.  But where the Forum looks the jurisdiction to entertain but complainant said that it can be done within its jurisdiction.

          In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and for which the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint as made by the op on 16.02.2015 bears merit in the eye of law and same should be allowed in view of the above legal position amendment of the complaint made by the complainant on 19.02.2015 bears no legal merit and same should be rejected.

          Hence, it is

                                                               ORDERED

          That the objection filed by the op challenging the maintainability of the case on 16.02.2015 is hereby allowed on contest against the complainant holding that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint in view of the fact.  In the original complaint total claim was Rs. 24,00,000/- and odd.

          Accordingly the application for amendment of the complaint filed on 19.02.2015 is rejected on contest without any cost against the ops.

          In the light of above observation return the complaint along with all papers to the complainant for presenting the same to the proper Forum as per provision of Section 11 & 17 of the C.P. Act.