SHAKIL MOHD VAKIL KHAN Vs. C K DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals arise out of same judgement delivered by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case no. 219 / 1995. By the impugned judgement, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint only against OP No. 2, Dr. C.K. Dave. He was directed to pay amount of Rs.4,10,000/- as compensation to the complainant - Shakil Mohammed.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, original complainant Shakil Mohammed has preferred FA No. 182 / 1999 seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation. Dissatisfied with the findings of the State Commission, the original OP No. 2, Dr. C.K. Dave has preferred FA No. 238 / 2002. It may be mentioned here that in his appeal, FA No. 182 / 1999, original complainant Shakil Mohammed had joined original OP No. 1 Dr. Ms. Perin Irani as well as original OP No. 3 Parsi Lying In Hospital. However, during hearing of the matter at interim stage, complainant Shakil Mohammed sought dismissal of the appeal against them, i.e., respondent nos. 1 & 3 in his appeal. By order dated 16.10.2004, they were directed to be deleted from the array of respondents for the reason that the appeal of Shakil Mohammed stood withdrawn as against them. So also, during course of hearing, learned counsel, Mr. Dhir appearing for appellant Dr. C.K. Dave made a statement that in his appeal too names of OP No. 1 Dr. Ms. Perin Irani and OP No. 3 Parsi Lying In Hospital may be deleted as no claim was being sought against them. In other words, the grievance of complainant - Shakil Mohammed in the context of FA No. 182/1999 is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded to him and is further restricted to the liability of OP No. 2 Dr. C.K. Dave. So also, in cross appeal (FA No. 238 / 2002) grievance of Dr. C.K. Dave, is restricted to the extent of adverse finding against him and moreover in respect of the legal impact of exclusion of the other two parties during the proceedings of the appeal of complainant Shakil Mohammed.

(3.) The facts, as unfolded from the record and pleadings of the parties, may be stated in nutshell as under: