VIMLA AGGARWAL vs MUKESH BATRA

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 5.4.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2256/2001- entitled Smt. Vimla Aggarwal v. Dr. Mukesh Batra & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Smt. Vimla Aggarwal had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service/negligence on the part of the respondents in treating her. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 3,15,950/- for mental agony, suffering permanent disability, cost of medicines, etc. etc. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents had taken certain preliminary objections. On merits while denying each and every allegation it was stated that there was no deficiency in service/negligence on the part of the respondents and the complaint, filed against the respondents, deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and on the basis of the above finding has directed the respondents to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the appellant, including the cost of litigation.

NOT feeling satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the Authorised Representative of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments the only contention advanced before us by the Authorised Representative of the appellant is that the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum is highly inadequate and that the appellant should have been granted the relief as prayed by her in the complaint, filed by her, before the District Forum. Insofar as the above contention, advanced by the Authorised Representative of the appellant is concerned, the position is that relief to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency, established under the Act, can be granted only in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act deals with compensation that can be awarded to a ''consumer'' by a redressal agency established under the Act. The above said provision of the Act reads as under : "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

ON a plain reading of the above provisions of the Act, it is apparent that a ''consumer'' may be awarded compensation only for any loss or injury suffered by the ''consumer'' due to the negligence of the opposite party. The Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision - in case Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. H.B. Impex Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2002 CTJ 106 (CP)(NCDRC), has held in clear-cut terms that where a consumer sues for damages, the loss he suffered as a result of breach of contract, must not be too remote and a distinction has to be drawn between normal and abnormal or unusual loss. In other words, a consumer, in terms of the above provisions, can be compensated only for normal loss and not for any abnormal or unusual or remote loss. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the Authorised Representative of the appellant, asking him to satisfy us as to how the relief granted to the appellant by the District Forum can be treated or termed as inadequate in terms of the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. No satisfactory reply could be given by the Authorised Representative of the appellant to our above query. No other point has been urged or pressed before us by the Authorised Representative of the appellant.

IN our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.