R.S.PARMAR vs DY. HOUSING COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THE complainant submitted a complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, Kota. THE opposite parties raised certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. One of the objections was that the cost of the house is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and as such the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complaint. THE District Forum by its order dated 11.2.91 held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and so it should be returned to the complainant for presentation before a competent Court. On an endorsement being made on the complaint about its return, the complainant presented the complaint before the State Commission.

IT may be stated that the District Forum fixed 15.3.91 as a date for hearing of the complaint before the State Commission. IT is how this complaint is before us. When this complaint was taken up today Mr. M.S. Bhargava, learned counsel for the complainant submitted an application stating that the complainant withdrawals the prayer for compensation and since the original cost fixed for the house by the opposite parties was Rs. 42,000/- and the house was allotted to the allottees of the same year at the cost of Rs. 93,000/- , the District Forum has jurisdiction after relinquishment of the claim regarding compensation. IT was also mentioned that the order for the return of the complaint was passed by two members only and a prayer made to consider the request for the withdrawal of the prayer of compensation was not heeded to. The complainant has stated that he is withdrawing the prayer for compensation and after the withdrawal of the prayer for the grant of compensation, the complaint can be entertained by the District Forum. IT is stated that the complaint may be returned to the complainant for representation to the District Forum, Kota. We have carefully considered the prayer made by the complainant in the application. It is settled that where a Court returns a plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it was beyond its jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to relinquish a portion of the claim, so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the former Court and to represent the plaint in the same Court. Reference may be made to A.I.R. 1931 Madras 8(9). The reasoning given in that case is applicable to the case on hand. This matter was considered again in A.I.R. 1954 All. 749. The learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that under the law a plaintiff is not prevented from amending the plaint which has been returned to him and to represent it to the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint. It was also held that in such a case no question of an abuse of the process of the Court is involved.

It may be recalled that the complainant instituted a complaint and the complaint was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. According to the complainant a prayer was made for the withdrawal of the claim of compensation but the request was not entertained. The complainant presented the complaint here.

IN the application which he has submitted today he wants to withdraw the prayer for compensation so as to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. IN view of the principles laid down in the cases referred to hereinabove, we direct that the complaint after making necessary endorsement together with the documents should be returned to the complainant for representation to the District Forum, Kota. The complaint now to be represented shall be deemed for the purposes of limitation as instituted on the day of representation. A copy of the complaint, the original application and the copies thereof and the power shall be retained here. We wish to invite attention of the District Forum to the order of the National Commission reported in (1) 1991 C.P.J. 50 wherein it was held that every order passed by the District Forum has to be signed by all the three members (President and two members) all of whom together constitute the District Forum and it is not competent for a Bench consisting of only two members and even a single member of the District Forum to validly hear and dispose of the complaint before the District Forum.

THE complaint shall be returned to the complainant in accordance with the directions made hereinabove. THE District Forum shall dispose of the complaint in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 4(11) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987. Complaint disposed of.