Avinash Kankani & Ors. vs New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

The application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been directed assailing order no.13

dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the Hon''ble members of the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal

(shortly to be called on hereafter only as the State Commission)

in a complaint case CC/112/2013 (Avinash Kankani & Ors. Vs.

New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited, shortly to be called on

hereinafter only as the O.P) where, the State Commission, entertaining an application being MA 964 of 2015 filed by the

O.P questioning maintainability of the said complaint case before

the State Commission on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction,

dismissed the complaint with liberty to file the same before the

appropriate forum.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

argued that once the complaint case was admitted by the State

Commission, registered it, pleadings were complete, as a result

of filing of written version by the O.P evidence on affidavit was

filed by the petitioner, the State Commission thereafter without

adjudication ought not to have dismissed on lack of pecuniary

jurisdiction. Submitted further that every such orders passed by

the State Commission since after registration of the complaint till

before filing of application being MA 964/2015 being final order

under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, shortly to

be called on hereafter only as the Act, so far as the respective

stages were concerned, and, there being no appeal, preferred by

the opposite party against either of those final orders, then only

recourse was opened before the State Commission to adjudicate

the complaint case on merit instead of dismissing the complaint

with liberty to file before the appropriate forum. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the case of Charan Sing Vs. Healing

Touch Hospital & Ors. decided by three Judges'' Bench of the

Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 668.

Submitted thereby to allow the revisional application setting

aside the order of the State Commission.

Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the O.P. inviting attention to

Sections 19 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 per

contra submitted that there having efficacious remedy in the Act,

and since such special statute is self-contained with the steps to

be adopted in any eventuality, the High Court should not invoke

the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to

interfere with the order impugned passed by the State

Commission upon hearing both sides, since only remedy of the

petition was to prefer appeal before the National Commission, if

aggrieved by the impugned order. Mr. Roy thereby relied on two

following decisions:-

Om Prakash Saini Vs. DCM Limited and Others reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 622

Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others reported in (2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 337.

Perused the materials on record including the impugned order

and the cases cited at the Bar.

The only point, to be considered by this Court, is whether the

State Commission committed any error in the decision making

process by dismissing the complaint with liberty to file the

complaint before appropriate forum, instead of adjudicating the

complaint case, or, whether there being efficacious remedy in the

Act this Court should remain within self-constrained restriction?

From record it reveals that the complaint case was filed on

05.06.2013 and upon hearing after admitting the complaint

directed notice upon the O.P. fixing date for S.R and appearance.

On next date the O.P appeared and on next date thereafter filed

written version. The case was accordingly posted for evidence on

affidavit which though was filed by the petitioner, but evading

four intervening dates, the O.P, instead of submitting evidence by

affidavit, filed the impugned application on 3rd December, 2015

being MA/964/2015 praying to excuse the delay in filing such

application, and, prayed for dismissal of the complaint case on

the following reasons:-

(i) The claim is baseless, misfounded, dishonest, vexatious and it is filed to extort money and it is filed jointly with a view to attract pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

(ii) It suffers from misjoinder of causes of action and parties.

(iii) Complaint as regard claim of nos. 2 to 6 is not entertainable by the State Commission and each of their claims are separately valued at Rs.5 lakh.

The prayers of the said application are also set out hereunder:-

(a) The complaint being S.C. No. 112 of 2013 be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs;

(b) Stay of all further proceedings in S.C. No.112 of 2013 pending disposal of the present application;

(c) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above;

(d) Such other of further orders as this Hon''ble Commission deems fit and proper.

The State Commission, upon hearing both sides observed in

the penultimate part of the impugned order which are as follows:-

"The complaint has been instituted alleging deficiency in service against the OP. The Complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 49 lakh. From page 22 being annexure to the complaint it appears that the total amount of the bill was Rs. 5,565/-. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there is no break up in paragraph 23 of the complaint. In view of the value of the hiring services, we are of the view relying on the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant that the amount of compensation is inflated. The complaint should have been filed before the Learned District Forum. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Complainants is not applicable in the circumstances of the instant case. We are of the considered view that the question of non-maintainability of the complaint is a question of law and it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding.

MA 964 of 2015 is allowed. The petition of complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum".

Invoking of jurisdiction over any dispute by the concerned

District Forum, State Commission and of the National

Commission is dependent in two fold manner, one is territorial,

and, the other is pecuniary jurisdiction. In the present case

discussion on pecuniary jurisdiction is relevant. In the Act

thereby, so far as pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is

concerned, Section 11 has fixed the limit "where the value of the

goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not

exceed rupees twenty lakhs", so far as the State Commission

where "exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees

one crore", and in case of National Commission if it exceeds, "the

values of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed

exceeds rupees one crore."

In view of the above provisions, in all the three tier systems the

pecuniary jurisdiction has been fixed by putting respective outer

limit. Though there is no provision in the Act making the State

Commission a complete bar that it cannot take cognizance of

any "value of the goods or services and compensation" if it does

not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Similarly the Act does not

provide any embargo upon the National Commission that it

would not be able to take cognizance if it does not exceed rupees

one crore. Rather reading all the provisions like Sections 11 or

17 or 21 of the Act harmoniously this court finds indication that,

"subject to the other provisions of this Act" the respective agency

"shall have jurisdiction to entertain" (emphasis supplied) if any

claim respectively does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs, so far the

District Forum is concerned, exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs, but does not

exceed Rs.1 Crore so far as the State Commission is concerned,

and exceeds Rs.1 crore so far National Commission. Therefore by

further discussion hereafter endeavour would be, even for

argument sake if it is found that by adjudication the value of the

goods or services and the compensation fell short of Rs.20 lakhs,

whether the State Commission would be out of, or, without

jurisdiction, or, would suffer from incompetence to finally adjudicate such a complaint case. Incompetence, so far as

pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, would be counted to

designate an order without jurisdiction, if the District Forum

would entertain a claim exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs, or the State

Commission would entertain a claim exceeding Rs.1 crore.

Therefore, competence of any order is tested always in terms of

outer limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, if any such

order is passed by either of the State or National Commission in

a matter which may not reach its inner limit would not be

captioned as an order without jurisdiction if the other side failed

to establish as to how he has become prejudiced, or in that case,

there was complete failure of justice. From the angle of natural

justice is concerned, the party at defeat only might be deprived

of one forum, but the said ground ought to have been pleaded

which is absent in this case. That is why sub-Section (2) of

Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down as follows:-

"No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."

Section 3 of the Act lays down, the provisions :-

Section 3:- Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Though all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are

not applicable in determining the dispute under the Act, but

every such proceeding before either of those three agencies shall

be deemed to be a judicial proceeding being vested with some

special powers under Section 13 sub-sections (4), (5), (6) & (7)

and the Forum or Commissions have been enjoying the same

powers, as have been vested to the civil court, in all eventualities

laid down under Section 13 of the Act.

Therefore, the legislation consciously did not provide any law

in the Act like order 7 Rule 10 or Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, but the Rules making authority provides that if a

complaint is not accompanied with the prescribed fees or the fees

in accordance with rule 9A(1) of 1987 Rules, the forum or

Commission, as the case may be, instead of rejecting any such

complaint, shall return the same to the complainant.

Though Section 12(3) of the Act has empowered all the three

agencies also to reject the complaint with the proviso appended thereto, still, the rule of law has established the norms that

admission of a complaint is the normal rule, and its rejection is

an exception and even the same is not permissible unless an

opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant.

Rejection of complaint in limine may be permitted only under the

following circumstances:-

"(i) where the complaint on the face of it is time barred and there is no prayer for condonation of delay under sub-sec.(2) of sec. 24A, or (ii) where even after accepting all the averments made in the complaint it is apparent that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of sec. 2(1)(d) or no consumer dispute is raised in the complaint. (iii) There may be another situation which calls for dismissal of the complaint before issuing notice upon the opposite party. This arises when a petition under sec. 24A(2) is filed along with a complaint, but the complainant fails to satisfy the Forum that there is sufficient ground for condonation of delay."

In the case on hand, however, the State Commission

dismissed the complaint giving liberty to the complainant to file

before the appropriate Forum. Meaning thereby, the State

Commission did not return the complaint to present before the

appropriate Forum, but keeping the complaint case on hold for a

period of about 2 years 11 months dismissed it. It means, if the

order is consumed by the petitioners then they are supposed to file a fresh complaint before the concerned District Forum if they

do want to pursue with the alleged cause of action which started

on 29th December, 2012 and continued through written

communications upto 1st week of February, 2013. Section 24A

which has specified the stipulated period in the matter of filing

complaint is set out:-

Section 24A:- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay.

The State Commission thereby in dismissing the complaint

persuaded by the technical ground of pecuniary jurisdiction did

not take note of the statutory period of limitation as provided

under Section 24A(1) above which has already been elapsed in

the matter of filing any such fresh complaint. Rather the State Commission put the complainants within the unforeseen hurdles

of sub-Section (2) and its proviso if the complainants would

desire to pursue with their alleged cause of action. This Court

observed that this action of the State Commission has caused

miscarriage of justice, and committed thereby perversity in the

decision making process by denying natural justice after keeping

the complaint case on hold for a period of about 2 years 11

months which was filed by the petitioners well within the

stipulated period of limitation before the State Commission.

Though the manner of filing complaint, procedure to admit

the same and finding to be made by the District Forum have been

provided in Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act, the Commission

also would maintain the same manner and procedure as has

been indicated under Section 18 of the Act which is set out:-

"Section 18 :- Procedure applicable to State Commissions.-[The provisions of sections 12,13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder] for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission."

So far as applicability of provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure in conducting the proceeding of present nature, discussion is held already. From the relevant portion of the

impugned order it reveals that the State Commission depending

upon the bill amount of Rs.5565/- given by the O.P. and holding

the said amount as the hiring services held "that the amount of

compensation is inflated". On examining the complaint it reveals

that setting out the causes of action, which were the alleged

bundle of facts, and showing break up justifying the alleged

amount of compensation in paragraph nos. 21, 22 and 23, the

same only would be now subject to adjudication. Those three

paragraphs are set out:-

Paragraph 21:- The complainant no.1 claims compensation for causing mental agony and torture by such illegal and wrongful acts committed by the opposite party and also resulting in humiliation, insult, illegal confinement of the complainant no.1 at the hotel premises which also amounts to gross deficiency is service for an amount of Rs. 24 lacs and also undermining the prestige and dignity of the complainant no.1 in front of his guests.

Paragraph 22:- The complainant nos. 2 to 6 claim a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each for causing mental agony and torture by such illegal and wrongful acts committed by the opposite party resulting in humiliation, insult, illegal confinenment of the complainant nos. 2 to 6 at the hotel premises till late night resulting in violation of dignity, safety and the right to freedom thereby resulting in exploitation and harassment of the complainants which amounts to gross deficiency in service. Paragraph 23:- The claim of the complainants are set out as follows:-

a) Claim compensation of complainant no. 1....24 lakhs

b) Claim compensation of complainant no.2....5 lakhs

c) Claim compensation of complainant no. 3....5 lakhs

d) Claim compensation of complainant no. 4....5 lakhs

e) Claim compensation of complainant no. 5....5 lakhs

f) Claim compensation of complainant no. 6....5 lakhs

The adjudicating authority after adjudication would be at

liberty to allow the claim either in full, or less than it as is

sought for, or, even may dismiss the complaint as a whole on

merit. But ignoring the break up, set out above, the State

Commission committed another wrong in the decision making

process by giving exposure of perversity in dismissing the

complaint allegedly for want of break up, which was not made

dependant only on the amount of the bill but it was moulded with

compensation amount for the alleged causes of action.

For the purpose of entertaining a complaint either under

Section 11 or 17, or 21 of the Act it depends on the amount of

claim by the complaint(s) where, of course, all opportunities

would remain open to counter and controvert such claim by the

O.P in the complaint case, subject to adjudication, depending

upon "the value of the goods or (emphasis is supplied to the word

"or") services and (emphasis is supplied to the word "and") the

compensation claimed therein. So the words "and the

compensation" are conjunctive to the word "goods" or "services".

By no stretch of imagination compensation would be determined

"in view of the value of hiring services" as wrongly observed by the

State Commission captioning the claim of amount of

compensation as inflated without adjudication. Therefore,

disjuncting the words "the compensation" from two other

components i.e. either due to deficiency in goods or deficiency in

services as alleged in the complaint and only relying on the

amount of hiring services (i.e. the bill amount of Rs.5565/-) the

State Commission committed another perversity in not taking

note of the claim of compensation, as set out in the complaint

case allegedly on account of causing insult, mental agony and

torture by the alleged wrongful acts, alleged to have been committed by the O.P. To accept or not, or, to accept as a whole,

or, to accept in part all would be dependant subject to the result

of adjudication. The State Commission wrongly made itself out of

its jurisdiction assuming the favourable result not exceeding the

amount of Rs. 5,565/- only.

The impugned application was submitted on some grounds

as set out hereinbefore in paragraph 16 above, on which the

Miscellaneous Application in the complaint case was registered.

In the application also delay in its presentation has been

sought to be excused. This Court took note of the fact that the

O.P. sometime after filing written version filed said application

under Section 17 read with Section 26 of the Act at some

belated stage, and not at the first opportunity. So far as

condonation of delay the only Section in the Act is 24A(2) which

may be available to the complainant in the matter of filing

complaint, if it was presented beyond stipulated period after the

cause of action. Such provision is not available to the O.P. The

O.P, had there been any logical cause, ought to file any

miscellaneous application at the first instance of their

appearance in the proceeding. The impugned order or any

other order prior to that does not indicate that upon hearing both sides either any leave was ever granted by the State

Commission in presenting such a belated miscellaneous

application questioning maintainability of the complaint case

before the State Commission, or, even such delay was ever

excused or condoned by the State Commission. To ignore this

aspect is also one of the other latches committed by the State

Commission in the decision making process.

It is redundant to mention that the issue as to whether the

complaint case would suffer from misjoinder of cause of action,

or, whether the claim is vexatious and inflated one can never be

answered without coming to the finality of the proceeding after

adjudication. The Commission dismissed the complaint in

allowing the MA 964 of 2015 only upon hearing, meaning

thereby, the State Commission without adjudication accepted

the text of the application filed by the O.P under Section 17 read

with Section 26 of the Act without opportunity to the

complainant to place evidence whether the claim of compensation

was inflated and exaggerated for the purpose of invoking

jurisdiction. The Commission wrongly observed that the point of

maintainability of the case is a question of law, which in reality is

not in this case. Rather, in view of the text of paragraph nos. 21, 22, 23 and the alleged cause of action as asserted in the

complaint leaves no room but to hold that the point of

maintainability in this case is a mixed question of law and fact,

and the decision would be dependent on the result of

adjudication. Thereby the finding of the State Commission that

the point of maintainability is merely a point of law is held as

perverse, and, thoroughly illegal causing serious miscarriage of

justice again in the decision making process, specially when even

the claim of amount of the complaint no.1 alone, as put in the

complaint attracts jurisdiction of the State Commission, since

the alleged cause of action for claim of compensation of all

others, being an added amount allegedly arose from the same

transaction. Therefore the joint claim cannot be held adverse or

has sufferance from misjoinder of causes of action as urged by

the O.P. in their application. Therefore allowing the application

with its text without adjudication the dismissal of complaint with

liberty to file it before appropriate forum has caused serious

departure in the decision making process.

As a matter of principle, this Court is not against contention

of Mr. Roy that when any statutory forum has been created by

law for redressal of grievances any application either Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained

ignoring the statutory dispensation. Therefore, adverting to the

rule of self imposed restraint any such application either under

Article 226 or 227 should not be entertained if an efficacious

remedy is available to the applicant to satisfy his grievances.

From the case of Om Prakash Saini Vs. DCM Limited & Ors (supra)

paragraph nos. 13 and 15 are set out:-

Paragraph No. 13:- Admittedly, Respondent 1 had availed the alternative remedy available to it under Section 21 by filing an appeal against the order of the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent 1 chose to challenge the order of the State Commission by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was entertained by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the assurance given by the learned counsel that the appeal filed before the National Commission will be withdrawn. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.3.2007 or the one by which the petition filed by Respondent 1 was finally disposed of does not contain any indication as to why the learned Single Judge thought it proper to make a departure from the rule that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

Paragraph No. 15:- The dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for recall of order dated 11.07.2007 is clearly vitiated by a patent error of law. In the petition filed by him, the appellant had averred that he could not file reply because of heart ailment and on the date of hearing he could not reach the High Court because of the failure of the public bus transport system. Respondent 1 did not controvert these averments. Notwithstanding this, the leaned Single Judge dismissed the application without even examining sufficiency of the cause shown by the appellant for his non-appearance on the date of hearing.

The said decision, on which Mr. Roy relied, is therefore

clearly distinguishable, since the petitioners of the case had

filed the complaint claiming compensation only before the

State Commission without applying here and there, or

presenting any other application before any other authority..

In the other case of Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators

Association of India & Ors. the case of Charan Singh (supra,

on which Mr. Chatterjee relied) this Court observed that only

paragraph nos. 11 and 12 from the case of Charan Singh

(supra) have been taken up for the decision in that case by the

Division Bench of the Supreme Court. But paragraph nos. 7,8,

and 15 of the said case of Charan Singh (supra) decided by the

Special Bench consisting of three Judges of the Supreme

Court, have not been diluted. Those paragraph nos. 7, 8, and

15 from the case of Charan Singh are set out:-

Paragraph No. 7:- The impugned order of the National Consumer Forum is very brief. While dismissing the complaint and relegating the appellant to approach either the District Forum or the State Commission, the National Consumer Forum inter alia observed:

"... The complainant was drawing a salary of Rs. 3000 plus allowances. This is his allegation which is not admitted by the opposite party. Even if we accept this contention is correct and even if we accept that as a result of wrong treatment given in the Hospital he has suffered is excessive. We are of the view that this exaggerated claim has been made only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission..."

Paragraph No. 8 :- The National Consumer Forum, in our opinion, was not fair in disposing of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as "excessive" or "exaggerated" after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking the appellant to move the State Commission or the District Forum by making "a realistic claim". Whether the claim of the appellant was "realistic", "exaggerated" or "excessive", could only have been determined after the appellant had been given an opportunity to prove the case he had set up and established his claim under various heads. It was not fair to call his claim "unrealistic", "exaggerated" or "excessive" without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate his case.

Paragraph No. 15:- That apart, in the present case, the complaint petition filed by the appellant for compensation was pending before the National Consumer Forum for six long years. The pleadings had been completed. The National Consumer Forum should have taken the complaint to its logical conclusion by asking the parties to adduce evidence and rendered its findings on merits. A mathematical calculation based only on the amount of salary being drawn by the appellant could not be the sole factor to be taken into consideration to style the claim of the appellant "unrealistic" or "exaggerated" or "excessive". The appellant has virtually been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years. The legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary trial, to settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been respected in its breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been overlooked and its object frustrated by non- suiting the appellant in the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the Act, if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right earnest.

The sequence of the case on hand is squarely matching

with the sequence taken place in the case of Charan Singh

(supra) and the Supreme Court has been pleased to disapprove

the act and action, even of the National Commission, which

instead of logical conclusion declined to entertain the

complaint by captioning the same as unrealistic or exaggerated

or inflated one without adjudication. Therefore, distinguishing

the decisions of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court

referred to by Mr. Roy and relying on the decision of the

Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprised by three

Judges as held in the case of Charan Singh (supra), this Court concludes that the impugned order passed by the State

Commission itself is without jurisdiction since it has been

passed without adjudication, and, the order dismissing the

complaint on a mere unsustainable technical ground thereby

is liable to be set aside.

However, amongst the points of argument submitted by

Mr. Chatterjee, this Court finds no merit on the submission

that the Opposite Party would not be entitled to raise question

of having lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the State

Commission since all the orders previous to the impugned

order passed by the State Commission at all relevant stages

had attained finality, and since, no appeal was ever preferred

by the Opposite Party against either of those orders.

Section 24 of the Act is accordingly set out:-

"Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final"

In Section 24 of the Act, the words "Every order" obviously

do not indicate the formal orders passed by either of three

Redressal Agencies admitting and registering complaint case or

receiving written version, or even the order settling the issues or receiving affidavit statements etc. All those orders were

passed in interlocutory stage. "Every order" within the term of

Section 24 of the Act, as intended by the legislature, must be

meaningful determining at least some controversy in favour of

either side, even as an interim measure in exercise of the

power vested by the provisions of the Act till before passing

final order. Obviously the term ''final order'' means by which

the proceeding, as is continuing between the parties, is

terminated leaving no other issue pending before the

concerned Redressal Agency. Therefore the status of a "Final"

Order passed by either of those three agencies cannot be

misread to mean and to equate with every order, which or

either of the same determines nothing, and those may be

captioned as formal orders and not "Final" order within the

meaning of Section 24 of the Act.

28.Thus examining all the materials on record in the

perspective of provisions of the Act and judicial

pronouncements referred to before this Court, Order no. 13

dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, West Bengal in complaint case no.

CC/112/2013 in allowing the MA 964 of 2015 is set aside and allowing the C.O. under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, the State Commission is directed to adjudicate the

issues involved in the complaint case including on the point of

maintainability on merit in accordance with law after complete

adjudication without allowing the mainstream of the case to be

diverted to any other angle in the name of traversing pecuniary

jurisdiction of the Commission after keeping the complaint

case on hold for more than two years eleven months, when

the provisions of the Act itself demand speedy disposal, and,

thereby only after adjudication the State Commission would be

at liberty to declare the final order either allowing the

complaint case in full, or in part or even dismissing the same

on merit. It is needless to mention that after adjudication and

in the event of only success in the case if the State

Commission does fix any amount of compensation, after

adjudication, and, if said amount even comes to below 20

lakhs, passing of said order in allowing the complaint case in

part shall not be any embargo on the way of dispensation of

natural justice. Because the pecuniary jurisdiction depends on

the value of claim asserted in the complaint, which requires

adjudication.

No order as to costs.

Urgent certified photostat copy be supplied on receipt of

appropriate application with requisite fees.