UPBHOKTA SANRAKSHAN SAMITI Vs. PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant before the District Forum, Jodhpur has filed this appeal under Sec.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 and 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) and (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 Sec.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.

(2.) 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

(3.) 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 and 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. Sec.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 Sec.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