HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order No. 6 dated 02/05/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit III (South), ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with Consumer Case No. CC/716/2022. 

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists over the revisional application at length and in full.

3. Perused the materials on record including the impugned order No. 6 dated 02.05.2023 and the revision application. The respondent No. 1 / complainant filed a complaint case before the Learned District Commission (Unit III) praying for the following reliefs :-

          “a) Direct the opposite parties to make payment of the claimed amount of Rs. 3 crore, jointly and severally, by way of compensation for ‘deficiency in service’ of the opposite parties for negligent treatment and / or death of the complainant’s father by way of medical negligence;

b) Pass such further and / or other order or orders and / or direction or directions, as to this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”

4. The opposite parties No. 1,2,3 & 4 entered appearance in this case but no written version was filed by the opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 on 02.05.2023. However, a petition was filed on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of this case. Thereafter, the said maintainability application filed by the opposite parties 1,2 & 4 was heard by the Learned District Commission and after hearing the said maintainability application filed by the opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 was rejected by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionists have preferred this revisional application.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists has urged that Learned District Commission below misinterpreted the complaint and is wrong to assume jurisdiction. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission ought to have held since the value claimed is much beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute. Hence, Learned Commission below has committed wrong both in fact and in law. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission below erred by misinterpreting section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He has further urged that the Learned District Commission has made erroneous and incorrect observation. The word ‘value’ paid or incurred means and includes all expenses as pleaded in the complaint and not the isolated one. He has further urged that the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

7. To adjudicate this issue we deem it appropriate to refer section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which runs as follows :-

          “34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.”

8. The Government has also notified the rules of the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commissions, the State Commissions and the National Commission) Rules, 2021. As per the rules revised pecuniary jurisdiction for entertaining consumer complaints in respect of goods and services paid as consideration shall be i)  upto Rs.50 lakh for District Commissions; ii) more than Rs.50 lakh to Rs.2 crore for State Commissions and iii) more than Rs.2 crore for National Commission.

9. On plain reading to the above provision of section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the above notifications, it appears to us that as per the existing provisions of the Act, the District Commissions have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50 lakh.

10. We have gone through the petition of complaint filed by the complainant. On perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that the complainant has claimed that a total sum of Rs.29,27,992/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh twenty seven thousand nine hundred and ninety two) only was paid towards the full expenses incurred for the treatment of the complainant’s father during his treatment at the hospital from 4^th August, 2020 to 31^st August, 2020. Under the Act and the subsequent Notification of the Govt. of India, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration gives jurisdiction to the Commission.  After going through the maintainability application filed by the revisionists / opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 it appears to us that the revisionists have nowhere stated in the said maintainability application that the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.50 lakh. Since as per averments made in the complaint the total value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50 lakh and since there is no whisper in the maintainability application that the value of the services paid was more than Rs.50 lakh, we are of the view that the District Commission clearly has the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  It cannot thus be said that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

11. Therefore, the observation as made by the Learned District Commission below appears to be just and equitable in the facts of the case. No palpable, crucial error in appreciating the facts of the case is visible, no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice is visible. Interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is not warranted.

12. The revision petition being ill conceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed. The District Commission’s order No. 6 dated 02.05.2023 is, therefore, confirmed.

13. The order made by the Learned District Commission is, therefore, sustained.

14. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly.

15. Registry of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Learned District Commission as early as possible.