UPBHOKTA SANRAKSHAN SAMITI vs PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

THE complainant before the District Forum, Jodhpur has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 16.3.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No. 71/89. THE District Forum by the impugned order directed that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presenting it before a competent Commission, as the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to here it. THE complainant is a registered Voluntary Association, of Consumers of Jodhpur D. strict. It has filed the complaintas the Consumer Voluntary Association of Consumers. THE complaint was filed against : (1) P.H.E.D., Jodhpur (2) Municipal Council, Jodhpur; (3) Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jodhpur; (4) Principal, Medical College, Jodhpur; (5) Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and (6) Collector, Jodhpur. During the last four months of 1988 vital hepatitis (Jaundice) broke out in Jodhpur City as a virulent explosive epidemic and thousands of citizens suffered from it. THE cause of the outbreake of this epidemic was faecal contamination of drinking water, pipes. It was submitted that the opposite parties-respondents were responsible for the outbreak. It was prayed in the complaint that Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded as compensation to every person who has suffered from Jaundice during the last one year in Jodhpur City and that a direction for a total relaying of water-supply and sewar disposal systems and for an immediate overhaul and repaid of both the systems pending renewal. This complaint is signed by the President, Upbhokta Samrakshan Samiti, Jodhpur and the General Secretary. A common reply was filed on behalf of all the opposite parties-respondents. Besides contesting the complaint on merits, the following objections were taken : (i) that the complainant has failed to show that the person who suffered from Jaundice is a consumer of P.H.E.D. (ii) that it has not been shown that the person who suffered from Jaundice is a resident of Jodhpur City and has not left the city for a long time and has suffered from Jaundice only because of contaminated water. (iii) that the prayer of the complainant in regard to compensation in vague and so it deserves to be dismissed with costs. (iv) that the water supply and sewar disposal systems are being maintained properly and improvements as and when required are made from time to time. (v) that the compensation claimed by the complainant is much more and beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and so the complaint should be dismissed summarily.

It may be stated at this stage that in this appeal we are concerned with objection No. 5 i.e. in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction. Arejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant refuting the objections mentioned above. In the rejoinder amongst others it was submitted that epidemic of jaundice was not localised in a particular area or mohalla of the city, but was spread over through the entire length and breadth of the city. A list of 46 persons together with their addresses was given. People, who have suffered from viral hepatitis and who live in all the parts of the city. THEir medical prescriptions were jointly attached with the rejoinder. In the additional grounds it was submitted by the complainant that each and every single person, who has suffered from jaundice in Jodhpur City, has not left the city for a long time. In any case, nobody can ever claim that all the 40,000 persons who have suffered from jaundice in Jodhpur City caught the infection elsewhere and not in Jodhpur City, specially when there are no reports of such an epidemic in any other part of the country. THE prayers made were amended by an application dated 4.5.1989. THE amended prayers are contained in para 2 of the application. It was stated that every student who has suffered from Jaundice during the year 1989 from January to April shall be awarded a minimum compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. It will be useful to quote prayers contained in para (c) & (d) of the application, which read as under : "(c) Many persons, who have suffered from Jaundice have already faced complications and severe after effects. For example, if a diabetic person suffers from jaundice, his sugar and chlorestrol level rise very high afterwards. Similarly, brains of some patients have been injured. In all such cases of complications, a minimum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- must be awarded. (d) Some deaths, due to jaundice, have also occurred. In all such cases, the next of kin or the parents of the deceased must be awarded a compensation of rupees one lakh."

A reply to the amended application was submitted with an objection that the application for amendment is misconceived and so it must be dismissed. THE complainant submitted 16 affidavits in support of the complaint. An objection that the State of Rajasthan is a necessary party was also raised. THE District Forum considered the application for amendment of the prayers and by its order dated 14.6.1989 held that permission should be granted to the complainant to amend the original complaint as prayed by it. By the order dated 6.7.1989 the District Forum also held that the rejoinder filed by the complainant cannot be said to have been submitted illegally. It, therefore, over-ruled the objection. THE District Forum heard the arguments and thereafter by the impugned order directed the return of the complaint, it being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to a competent Commission under the Act. THE order of return is assailed by the complainant appellant by filing the appeal under Section 15 of the Act. Before the District Forum three contentions were raised at the time of arguments : (i) that the complainant has no authority to file a complaint under the Act. (ii) that the complaint cannot proceed in the absence of the State of Rajasthan which is a necessary party and (iii) that the compensation claimed is more than Rs. 1 lakh and as such the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint.

THE District Forum recorded the following findings : 1. that the complainant, which is a registered Samiti, is competent to file the complaint under the Act.

THAT the State of Rajasthan may be a necessary party but because Municipal Council and Urban Improvement Trust have already been impleaded as parties, it cannot be said THAT the State of Rajasthan is a necessary party and That the consumer Samiti had claimed in the beginning compensation to the tune of Rs. 4.15 lakhs and after amendment it is much more and so the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as compensation exceeds Rs. 1 lakh. On the basis of the finding in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, it ordered the return of the complaint as stated above. Arguments were heard on 16.11.1990. On That day Mr. N.L. Pareek, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1,3,4 & 5 submitted That he may be allowed to make additional written submissions, if any. Mr. Amrit Nahata, President was also asked whether he wants to file any written submissions in writing or not to which he replied That he does not want to submit any. Mr. Pareek submitted the written arguments on 3.12.90. It was written That the complainant will be served with the written arguments by these respondents. In the written arguments learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 has formulated two questions : (i) Whether the complaint is main tainable without impleading the State Government as a party and (ii) That the compensation claimed in the complaint is more than Rs. 1 lakh and as such the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.

The first question That has been formulated behalf of respondents No. 1,3,4 & 6 is for the purpose on the basis of this objection. It may be stated That the District Forum had ordered for the return of the complaint on the ground That the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. It, however, held That the Rajasthan Govt, may be a necessary party but as Municipal Council, Jodhpur and Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur have been impleaded as parties to the complaint, there is no difficulty in the adjudication of the complaint even if the State of Rajasthan has not been impleaded as a party. It is clear That the District Forum did not consider it proper either to give a direction for impleading the State of Rajasthan as a party or That the complaint should be dismissed on account of non joinder of a necessary party, no effective relief could be granted to the complainant In these circumstances learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 is not justified in submitting That he supports the order on the basis of the objections taken by him i.e. State of Rajasthan has not been impleaded and so the order as passed is proper. The only question That crops up for our determination in this appeal is whether the order of District Forum directing the return of the complaint to the complainant as the amount claimed by it exceeds Rs. 1 lakh is correct or not. In other words the question is whether the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The relevant part of S. 11 of the Act which deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum is as under : "11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum : (1) Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services and the compensation if, any claimed is less than rupees one lakh."

The complainant is a registered society/Association. Section 12 of the Act provides for manner in which complaint shall be made. Under this section any recognised Consumer Association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a consumer of such association or not can file the complaint. The complainant (Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti, Jodhpur) is a voluntary Association of consumers of Jodhpur District and is a duly authorised association as per Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being only registered under Registration of Societies Act. It has been stated in para 15 of the complaint That the people of Jodhpur City have a right to get "save, clean and hygenic water" and That "this right has been squarely denied to them" which resulted in the outbreak of viral hepatitis in epidemic proportions in Jodhpur City. As the complaint was filed by the complainant as a "common cause", the prayer was made for the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to every person who has suffered from jaundice during the last one year in Jodhpur City. The prayers were amended by application dated

1989 by saying that minimum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- should be awarded to each person who has suffered from jaundice and Rs. 1 lakh to the parents to the kinds of the persons had died on account of jaundice. The contention raised by the complainant-appellant before us was that on account of the outbreak of viral hepatitis in epidemic proportions, there were two alternative open to the complainant : (1) Either to advice each and every citizen who has suffered from jaundice to file a complaint before the District Forum or (2) to file a "common complaint" before the District Forum. Our attention was drawn to the Preamble of the Act which is as under : "An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils arid other authorities for the settlement of consumer''s disputes and for matters connected therewith."

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 lays down that it seeks to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and for the purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer''s disputes and for matters connected therewith. A careful perusal of the Preamble and Statement of Object and Reasons of the Bill of 1986 shows that the object is expeditious and speedy disposal of the complaint of the consumer. As stated above in a complaint where a common cause is involved and the consumers association or a voluntary organisation comes forward for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers, there may be two contingencies : (1) It may be imcapable of valuation and (2) the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be judged by the amount of compensation claimed per person and not the aggregate of the amounts of all such persons. One should not lose sight of the fact that no Court fee is payable on complaints filed under Section 12 of the Act. In our opinion for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the amount of compensation claimed for each individual may be a member of the consumers voluntary organisation or not should be taken as the amount claimed for individual for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is wrong as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 that the aggregate of the amounts claimed by the persons should be taken into consideration. Section 11 of the Act merely lays down that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation is less than Rs. 1 lakh. By way of amendment, the complainant has increased the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is respect of the persons who have suffered from jaundice to Rs. 20,000/- and also to award compensation to the kins of the persons who have died at Rs. 1 lakh per person. There is bad drafting of the provision contained in S. 11(1) of the Act as the words used are less than rupees one lakh and in S. 17(a)(i) the words "exceeds rupees one lakh have been used. What about complaints which are valued at rupees one lakh? As stated above pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the averments made in the complaint. The District Forum was impressed by the fact that on the basis of the averments made by the complainant the amount of compensation payable to 46 persons exceeds rupees one lakh and so the complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum. According to Mr. Pareek it is not only Rs. 4,60,000/- but come to crore. In a case of the nature in hand which is a "common cause" litigation where the consumer association (Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti, Jodhpur) has come for pleading the cause of the persons affected by viral hepatitis when spread in the epidemic form exact amount of compensation cannot be determined. The District Forum has to go by the valuation as specified for each consumer. The authorities relied on by Mr. Pareek are of no assistant and they are clearly distinguishable. On behalf of all the persons affected compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per person has been claimed which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. The reason given by the District Forum is not correct. In a "common cause" complaint the Redressal Forums established under the Act can give directions in respect of the persons (complainant) similarly situated, though separate complaints have not been filed by them. Before the District Forum the complainant has filed affidavits in support of the complaint. It was tried. We are, therefore, of opinion that the valuation for the purpose of entertaining the complaint filed by the complainant is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was not correct when it ordered that the complaint should be returned to the complainant for presenting it before a competent Commission. From the foregoing discussions made hereinabove that the order under appeal for the return of the complaint cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.3.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur for return of the complaint filed by the complainant is set aside. The District Forum is directed to restore the complaint to its original number and decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal is allowed.