HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS ,PRESIDENT

       This appeal has been directed against order no. 8 dated 22-12-2016 passed by Ld. DCDRF, 24-Parganas (North) at Barasat in CC/238/2016 where Ld. Forum concerned while hearing, at the initial stage of admission of the petition of complaint, dismissed the same on the ground of non-maintainability and for not complying the direction given by the DCDRF, Unit-II, Kolkata.Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with such order of dismissal,the present Appeal has been preferred.

     A complaint case was filed by the appellant being CC/354/2014 before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II and an application was filed by the OP  before Ld. Forum concerned alleging that the complaint case was not maintainable before the said Forum, as the cause of action arose out of the jurisdiction of DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II. While returning the petition of complaint, Ld. Forum concerned directed the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum at Barasat (North 24-Parganas) having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

       The order impugned reflects that the complainant in terms of the direction received back the petition of complaint of CC/354/2014 and instead of filing the said petition of complaint before the DCDRF, Barasat having territorial jurisdiction to try the case, filed a separate one upon insertion of certain facts instead of inserting those facts by amendment.

       Ld. Trial Forum i.e. Ld. DCDRF at Barasat while dealing with the petition of complaint rejected the same on the grounds of its maintainability with a finding that the complainant did not obey the order of Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II and held that the amended complaint should not be admitted to file for giving reliefs to the complainant.

       The complaint case (CC/354/2014) was filed before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II alleging medical negligence of the OP no. 2 and the complainant was treated at City Dental Hospital, 241, B. B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata – 700012. Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II while disposing of the question of admissibility of the complaint case held that  no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II rather it occurred within the jurisdiction of DCDRF, North 24-Parganas at Barasat and in view of the matter, the petition of complaint was returned to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate Forum (DCDRF, Barasat) having territorial jurisdiction to try the same. Consequent to the order dated 19-08-2015 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II, the complainant filed the petition of complaint before Ld. DCDRF at Barasat but his petition was not entertained rather it was dismissed on the ground of its maintainability on the ground, as mentioned earlier.

       Once the petition of complaint was filed before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II and a direction was given to file it before the DCDRF, Barasat having jurisdiction to entertain the said petition of complaint we should not be unmindful that when a petition of complaint is required to be filed, in terms of a direction given by a Forum heading of the petition should at least be changed. It is alleged that some alteration or modification has been done by the complainant in the said petition of complaint before filing it before the DCDRF at Barasat.

       This is a beneficial legislation giving the consumers an opportunity to file the petition of complaint before the appropriate Forum and it is desirable that the petition of complaint should be accurate and if any formal change is necessary that should not be taken into account with a fault finding attitude but Ld. Trial Forum in the order impugned examined the petition of complaint, as reflected from order no.8 dated 22.12.2016 with an attitude to find out fault in it. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in course of hearing drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Purusharth Builders Private Limited through its authorized representative Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. Ms. Uppal Housing Limited and another, reported in 2012 (3) CPR 160 (NC) and pointed that second complaint cannot be filed to fill up lacuna in first complaint but in the instant case the complainant was filing the petition of complaint before the DCDRF concerned at Barasat as per direction of another Forum which held that the said Forum did not have any territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It is pointed out that while filing the petition of complaint the complainant must have inserted the heading of the petition mentioning the name of the Forum before which the petition is going to file. If such an insertion or any typographical mistake is corrected in the subsequent petition, it would not cause serious prejudice to the other side. Hence, taking into account the intention of the legislature as well as the facts of the case, we allow the appeal,  set aside the order impugned and direct that the complaint case being CC/238/2016, be taken to file by Ld. DCDRF, 24-Parganas at Barasat for disposal of the same according to law. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal. Parties to appear before Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Barasat, 24 PGS (N) on 7.6.2018.