MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          The Revision Petitions bearing Nos. RP/133/2017 and RP/146/2017 have been directed respectively by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and O.P. No. 3 assailing the identical order bearing No. 06 dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata – Unit – III in connection with the said complaint case, admitting the complaint case concerned despite the aggregated value of the complaint case concerned goes beyond Rs.20 lacs. 

          The Ld. Advocates for the Revisionist of both the revision petitions submit that at prayer (b) of the complaint petition the Complainant has claimed demurrage charges Rs.20 lacs, and that if the total cost of the treatment paid to the O.P. – Hospital being Rs.30,650/- (Bill dated 14.05.2016 for Rs.400 plus Bill dated 14.05.2016 for Rs.150/- plus Bill dated 17.06.2016 for Rs.100 plus Bill dated 17.06.2016 for Rs.30,000) is added to the demurrage claim, then the total value of the complaint case concerned stands at Rs.20,30,650/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Learned District Forum as prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Ld. Advocates further submit that impugned order having been passed beyond the statutorily prescribed pecuniary limit of the concerned Ld. District Forum, is a nullity and hence the said order should be set aside and the complaint concerned be dismissed.

          On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the demurrage charges claimed being Rs.20,00,000/- the concerned complaint case falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum and hence, the revision petitions in question should be dismissed and the impugned order be affirmed.

          Written version filed by the O.P. No. 2 Hospital, as available on record, reveal that the aggregate cost of treatment was Rs.30,650/- as detailed hereunder. 

Bill dated 14.05.2016 for Rs.400

Bill dated 14.05.2016 for Rs.150/-

Bill dated 17.06.2016 for Rs.100/-

Bill dated 17.06.2016 for Rs.30,000/-

          If the aforesaid value of the treatment is added to the claim of demurrage charges at prayer (b) in the petition of complaint then the aggregate value of the complaint case stands at Rs.20,30,650/- which conspicuously exceeds the pecuniary limit of the Ld. District Forum as prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          In this context, the decision of the 4 – Member Bench of Hon’ble National Commission in Quality Foils India Private Limited – vs. – Bank of Madura & Anr., reported in II (1996) CPJ 103 (NC), is very relevant wherein it was held that the intention of the Legislature is clear to give jurisdiction based on the aggregate value of the goods or services and compensation claimed.  Another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 Others – vs. – Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited, reported in 2016 (4) CPR 83 (NC) is also relevant. 

          It is also well settled that the order passed beyond the statutorily prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity.

          In view of the foregoing facts, evidence on records and decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, both the revisions concerned deserve to be allowed and accordingly those allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the complaint case concered is dismissed.

          The Complainant is given liberty to move the appropriate Forum for remedy. 

          This order shall govern both the Revision Petitions bearing Nos. RP/133/2017 and RP/146/2017.